The judgment below

The part against the Defendant (Counterclaim) regarding the main lawsuit and counterclaim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If the nature of the source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his/her intention pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Such presumption is equally applied to the possession by the State or a local government (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “State, etc.”) which is the managing body of the cadastral record, etc., and even in cases where the possessor asserts the title of possession, such as purchase and sale or donation, but not recognized as such, unless the possessor bears the burden of proving the source of possessory right, the presumption of possessory right cannot be deemed to have been reversed or to have been occupied by the nature of the source of possessory right.

(2) The State, etc. is not obligated to submit the documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of acquisition by prescription is claimed. Therefore, even if the State, etc. failed to submit the documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of acquisition by prescription is claimed, considering the following: (a) the purpose and purpose of the possession; (b) whether the State, etc. made efforts to exercise the ownership of the land in the cadastral record after the commencement of possession; and (c) the relationship between the use or disposal of divided land and other land, if the State, etc. cannot be ruled out that the right of ownership was lawfully acquired as a result of the acquisition procedure of public property at the time of commencement of possession, the presumption of autonomous possession by the State, etc. should not be recognized as an occupation without permission, by denying the presumption of autonomous possession by the State, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866 Decided August 19, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748 Decided March 27, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court occupied each of the lands listed in the first instance judgment’s list (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) for at least 20 years.