(a) The burden of proving the possession with respect to the prescriptive acquisition;

B. Whether the presumption of possession with intention to hold possession with intent to hold possession with intent to hold possession with intent to hold possession with intent to hold possession with intent to hold possession is reversed (negative)

A. It is presumed that the possessor had the intention to own the possessor, who is the requisite for the prescriptive acquisition, is presumed to possess the possessor as his own intention pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Code, because it is determined according to the nature of the title, but if the nature of the title is not clear, the possessor is presumed to possess the possessor as his own intention. Therefore, the possessor is not responsible for proving that the possessor is the owner

B. Although the possessor asserted that he/she received a donation by himself/herself as the title of possession, the presumption of possession with intention to hold it cannot be reversed as the donation is not recognized.

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Da615 delivered on January 31, 1984 (Gong1984, 435) (Gong1984, 435) 86Meu1483 delivered on February 24, 1987, 9Gong1987, 521) 85Meu230 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 779) (Gong1987, 1561) 88Meu68 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1989, 866)

Attorney Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Pursuant to Article 14

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na5685 delivered on June 14, 1989

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant asserted that the land at issue in this case was acquired by donation from the owner on June 7, 193 when the land category was changed to the road (as of June 7, 193), and that the land category was changed to the road on June 7, 193, and that the land category was changed to the road on June 7, 193, but there was no other evidence to acknowledge the prescriptive acquisition of the land above the Jung-Eup group, on the ground that the land category was changed to the road on June 7, 193.

However, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant has continuously occupied the land as a road site until now after June 7, 193. In such a case, it is determined according to the nature of the source of authority, but if the nature of the source of authority is not clear, it is presumed that the possessor has possession with the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor is not responsible for proving that the possessor has possession, and the other party who denies it should prove it. Such legal principles are argued as the possessor's title that he has received a donation, but the presumption is not reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 83Da615 delivered on January 31, 1984). Thus, in this case, in order to deny the defendant's autonomous possession, the part that the defendant's possession cannot be recognized by evidence that the possessor's source of right cannot be the owner, and the defendant's assertion alone cannot be the owner's possession cannot be viewed as the owner's right of possession. Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff's appeal against the above ruling cannot be reversed.

According to the records, the plaintiff Kim Young-soo participated in a part of the share of the land in this case from the Park Jong-dae's order in 1986 and participated in the plaintiff, but it is identical to the decision of the court below that the land became the road site of Jeong Jong-si's Jung-si since 50 years ago. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the transaction was legitimate until considering which purpose of acquiring the share was achieved. The court below should determine whether to accept the plaintiff's claim after examining this point.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)