beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b) 4,056,200 won and as regards this.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On June 21, 1965, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) and owned the said real estate until now.
B. The Defendant provided each of the instant real estate to the general public for traffic and traffic, and occupied and managed it.
[Ground of recognition] The defendant has a duty to deliver each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, according to the above findings of finding as to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the provisional number), the whole purport of the pleading, and the ground for appeal as to the request for extradition.
The Defendant’s assertion 1) asserts that the prescription period for possession has expired since the Defendant occupied and occupied each of the instant real estate on a road for about 27 years to 40 years. In the event it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another without permission knowing it without any legal act or any other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of commencement of possession, barring any special circumstances, the possessor of the real estate shall be deemed not to have an intention to reject the ownership of another and hold it. Thus, the presumption that the possession of the real estate has an intention to own is broken. Furthermore, even if the local government or the government takes the procedure for acquiring the public property under the Local Finance Act or the State Property Act, such as the payment of its own share or donation, or includes the private land into the road without a specific title that can occupy the land, such as obtaining the consent of the owner, it shall be deemed that the presumption of autonomous possession has broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da6472, Mar. 27, 2001).