1. The Defendant is based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on April 18, 2015, with respect to the Plaintiff’s 1,469 square meters in Seosan-si.

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the basic facts and the record of Gap evidence No. 3 are acknowledged that the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale and purchase as to C 1,469m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case") on January 11, 1971, and that the plaintiff occupied and used the land in this case from April 18, 1995 to the present day.

2. Determination as to whether the enterprise occupies independently

A. According to the relevant legal principles, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent. As such, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention when he/she asserts the acquisition by prescription. The possessor bears the burden of proving the establishment of the acquisition by prescription by asserting that he/she has no intention to own it. Whether the possessor is an autonomous or non-owned possession, or whether the possessor is an independent or non-owned occupancy is determined by the possessor’s internal deliberation, not by the possessor’s internal deliberation, but by the external and objective decision on the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of possession, or by all circumstances related to the occupation. As such, the possessor is proved to have obtained possession on the basis of the title that is deemed to have no intention to own, or cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intent of exclusive control as his/her own property by excluding the ownership of another person. In other words, the possessor cannot be presumed to have rejected the external possession of another person’s ownership only if he/she did not express his/her intention or would have acted as a matter of course.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da72743, Feb. 26, 2002).

Judgment

Doctrine, strife.