1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall deliver to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the return of H 3,837.8 square meters at the time of Seosan to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

2...

The main lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is punished by the net B.

On August 15, 2017, the deceased on August 15, 2017, there are Defendant C, E, F, and G, the spouse of the deceased.

The net B purchased the instant land on October 20, 1974 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 22, 1979.

The Plaintiff used the instant land from around 1976 with the permission of the deceased B.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion B expressed his intention to transfer the ownership of the instant land under the pretext of accord and satisfaction with, or donation to, the rice fraternity that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff on October 1, 1980 or October 1, 1981, which was the date of the Plaintiff’s presentation, as to the Plaintiff’s presentation of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the Plaintiff’s presentation of the purchase of the instant land, as well as the presentation of the payment to, or donation from, the rice fraternity that he paid to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, on the same day, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land was converted into an independent possession, and as the Plaintiff has occupied it in peace and openly for twenty (20) years thereafter, the acquisition by prescription was completed.

Judgment

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land from around 1976 to 20 years is presumed to have been carried out in peace and public performance by the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act.

As to this, the defendants defense that the plaintiff's possession is the possession of the owner of the ship.

On the other hand, the existence of ownership should be determined objectively and objectively by the nature of the title, which is the cause of the acquisition of possession, or by all circumstances related to the possession (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da2187, Apr. 26, 2012). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s first possession of the instant land, as the buyer obtained the consent to the use of the network B, which was the right to occupy and use the land, is recognized as the possession of the Plaintiff, and thus, the presumption of the possession with autonomy was reversed.