Presumption of Possession of Road Sites

The intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with intention to hold possession with intention to hold it objectively, depending on the nature of possessory right. However, if the nature of possessory right is not clear, it is presumed to be possession with intention to hold it independently pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. The presumption of possession with intention to hold it is also applicable to roads occupied by the State or a local government, and even if it is not acknowledged that the right of possession was lawfully acquired in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act at the time of the construction of the road, the presumption of possession with intention to hold it cannot be

Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

[Judgment of the court below]

Gwangju Metropolitan City

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na5696 delivered on November 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with intention to hold possession with intention to hold it objectively, depending on the nature of possessory right. However, if the nature of possessory right is not clear, the presumption of possession with intention to hold it is presumed to be possession with intention to hold it independently under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, and such presumption of possession with intention to hold it is also applicable to roads occupied by the State or a local government, and even if it is not acknowledged that the person lawfully acquired the possessory right in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act, etc. at the time of construction of the road, the presumption of possession with intention to hold it cannot be deemed as possession with the nature of possessory right (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da84

The court below acknowledged the facts based on macroficial evidence, and judged that the possession of the land in this case by Jeonnam-do and the defendant is presumed to be possession independently, and the acquisition by prescription by the defendant was completed on the date when 20 years elapsed from August 15, 1945, counting from August 15, 1945. In light of relevant evidence and records and the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below as above is justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, in the judgment of the court below. The judgment of the party members who are in the Republic of Korea is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)