[1] In a case where it is proved that the possessor did not have an intention to possess another person's ownership in light of external and objective aspects, whether the presumption of possession with autonomy is reversed (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a loan contract was concluded with respect to the state property that occupies the property during the term of prescription, whether the presumption of possession with independence is reversed (affirmative)

[1] The issue of whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession with the intention of possession or with the intention of possession is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, not by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that is the cause of the acquisition of possession or by all circumstances related to the possession, and thus, it should be determined externally and objectively. As such, the objective circumstance that the possessor is proved that the possessor acquired the possession on the basis of the title that appears to have no intention of possession due to its nature, or that it cannot be deemed that the possessor acquired the possession with the intent of exercising exclusive control like his own property by excluding the ownership of another person, or that the possessor does not act that the possessor would have taken as a matter of course if he did not act that the possessor would have taken as a matter of course if he did not act that the possessor would have taken.

[2] In a case where a loan contract was concluded between the management agency upon an application for a loan agreement with regard to the state property that occupies the period of prescription, it constitutes an objective circumstance where the possessor cannot be deemed as possessing it with the intent of exercising exclusive control as his own property by excluding the ownership of another person.

[1] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997 (Gong1995Ha, 3122), Supreme Court Decision 97Da32901 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3614 delivered on February 13, 1998), Supreme Court Decision 97Da35603 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 734 delivered on March 13, 1998), Supreme Court Decision 97Da50169 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong198Da19949 delivered on April 29, 199 (Gong1998, 104) and Supreme Court Decision 97Da32999 delivered on May 298, 194)

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 97Na8869 delivered on February 4, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s husband Nonparty 1 purchased and occupied the land prior to the land substitution over two occasions in 1964 and 1967, which was the Plaintiff’s husband, from Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, and occupied the land at the time when the land substitution was made in accordance with the Partition and Rearrangement Project on June 7, 197, and that the Plaintiff succeeded to the land after the Plaintiff died on May 20, 197, and it was presumed that Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff occupied the land at the will of ownership, and that the period of prescriptive acquisition was terminated on June 7, 1993, which was 20 years from June 7, 1993, which was 195, and determined that the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff, the defense of the Defendant, had no possession of the land of this case, or that the Plaintiff was converted to the Plaintiff’s possession of the land, for five years from June 198, 198.

2. However, it is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that was the cause of the acquisition of possession, or by all circumstances related to the possession. Thus, the objective circumstance that the possessor cannot be deemed as the possessor’s possession with the intention of exercising exclusive control as his own property by excluding another’s ownership, i.e., the possessor’s failure to take an ordinary position or without acting as the owner, i.e., if it was proved that the possessor did not have an intention of rejecting another’s ownership, and that the possessor did not have an intention of denying the ownership of another’s property as a matter of course, the presumption is broken down even if it was proved that the possessor did not have an intention of denying the ownership of another’s property, and that the possessor did not have an intention of denying the ownership of another’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 1997).

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)