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 plaintiff's main ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence additionally submitted in this court, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the plaintiff's grounds of appeal is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the plaintiff's grounds of appeal. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is that the Defendant did not pay the property tax on the instant land and did not present the sales contract or the data on payment of the price, despite asserting that the Defendant concluded the sales contract with H., the Defendant’s possession of the instant land constitutes the possession of the owner.

After completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the content that the Plaintiff’s father I notified the Plaintiff of the acquisition of ownership on August 10, 2009 and August 20, 2009 that he would select either of the payment of rent, purchase of land, and withdrawal of possession. The Defendant’s autonomous possession was later converted into the possession.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object with his/her intention to own. As such, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her intention to own. Rather, he/she bears the burden of proving that the possessor’s possession has no intention to own it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of Gap, Gap, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 evidence, Eul, 1 through 7, and 11 through 16, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff or the circumstances asserted by the plaintiff are alone the defendant.