1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that part of the plaintiff's assertion is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case.

2. In determining the acquisition by prescription, the existence or absence of possession is objectively determined by the nature of the source of possessor’s right: Provided, That if the nature of the source of possessor’s right is not clear, it is presumed that the possessor has possession with his/her intention under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act; thus, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove that he/she is possession independently by the nature of the source of possessor’s right; on the other hand, the other party who asserts that the possessor is possession with no intention to own, bears the burden of proving that the possessor is possession independently; on the other hand, whether the possessor is the possession with intention to own or with no intention to own is determined by the internal intent of the possessor, not by the internal intention of the possessor, but by all circumstances related to the nature of the source of right as the cause of the acquisition by possession, and thus, the possessor has to be determined externally and objectively, on the basis of his/her title that the possessor did not have an intention to exercise exclusive control as his/her own property. In other words, if the possessor does not have expressed his/her genuine intent to deem the possessor’s possession.