The judgment below

The part concerning one-half of the five square meters in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, is reversed, and this part of this case is applied.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the portion of 1/2 shares out of 5 square meters in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”).

A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his/her own intention. As such, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention in cases where the possessor asserts

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997, etc.) In addition, when purchasing or acquiring a site along with a ground building and commencing possession, the buyer does not accurately confirm the boundary line with the adjacent land and thus the buyer believed and occupied a part of the adjoining land as belonging to the site he/she purchased or acquired, as long as he/she actually acquired a part of the adjoining land, the possession of the adjoining land should also be deemed to be based on the owner’s intent, as long as he/she actually occupies it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da32878, Nov. 10, 1998). A person who knowingly occupies another’s land adjacent to his/her own land and subsequently occupies it as a part of his/her own land at the beginning of his/her possession, became aware that the land is not owned by himself/herself later.

Even if the existence of a mutual dispute is revealed as a result of a cadastral survey or as a result, such circumstance alone does not change the possession into the possession of the owner.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da43666, 43673, Sept. 13, 2013). There was a dispute between a local government and a possessor of public land by notifying him/her of the payment of usage fees and rejecting his/her application for non-performance

Even if the peace and public performance of the possession is lost or it is not a principal possession, and the acquisition by prescription of the possessor shall not be suspended immediately on the ground that the State or a local government imposed and imposed the user fee on the possessor of state-owned land.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 95Da33948 delivered on November 7, 1995).