The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where it is proved that an occupant occupied an immovable property owned by another person without permission despite the knowledge of the absence of such legal requirements, such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring any special circumstance, the occupant shall be deemed not to have an intention to reject the ownership of another person and to possess it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention to own is broken (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 1997). Thus, the presumption of the possession with the intention to own is broken down (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 1997).

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that since B was destroyed by the registration register, etc. as to each of the lands of this case, since October 1, 1913, it is difficult to conclude that B continued possession of each of the lands of this case until April 10, 1962, since the Defendant commenced possession of each of the lands of this case, and among them, the Defendant could have lawfully acquired ownership of each of the lands of this case. In light of its reasoning, the court below rejected the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion that the Defendant’s possession of each of the lands of this case was destroyed by the presumption that the possession of each of the lands of this case was independent possession and completed the prescription period for the Defendant’s possession.

However, according to the records,

6. It shall be caused by the Korean War.