奇石珠宝真君 -
Q4: accused the evidence provided, whether to all embezzlement shall meet the requirements of "two conditions adverse possession" only the success of inverse infringement or individual occupation meet the above two conditions may successfully reverse infringement?
Answer: I think if embezzlement defendants among two is in accordance with the "two conditions adverse possession", namely "the fact tube" and "pipe has the intention" both conform to, according to the judgment of the defendant has no inverse tort is based on the "adverse possession" regulations, also no focus request embezzlement of more and less, therefore, the individual should be the defendant in accordance with the "expropriation of adverse possession" of the Ordinance is successful reverse infringement. Embezzlement defendants on the land, planting and fence and septic tank in spite of the fact that possession, but no intention significantly, but if the defendant without interruption for large-scale planting in the land, and the defendants had to rely on their own in the land planted in the behavior of people from outside the claimed to be the land the owner, in this sense, planting has obvious tube has the intention, even if the fence and septic tanks and did not meet the "adverse possession" pipe has the intention of this condition, but the planting the embezzlement, already is in line with the "adverse possession", but also constitutes a defendant may be successful occupation of the inverse land. To sum up, I think the defendant even if individual embezzlement achieve "adverse possession" condition has a chance to succeed against infringement.
望采纳，谢谢！
黑桃花 -
D4: la evidenteco havigita de la akuzito, u0109u vi volas u0109iujn okupacio de konduto devas respekti la "adversaj posedo" du kondiu0109oj por esti sukcesa la inverso Tort, au016d iuj de la individuo eksproprietigo de u0109i tiuj du kondiu0109oj estas veru015dajna al esti sukcesa kontrau016d la malobservo? A: Mi kredas ke multaj de la akuzito eksproprietigo kiu du la Bei plenumi du kondiu0109ojn de "adversaj posedo", "fakto" kaj "posedo de nafto intenco de" ambau016d kunvenas kaj juu011di la akuzito, lau016d la kazo Neniu inversa malobservo estas bazita sur "adversaj posedo" Ordenanza ne enfokusigi postulas la okupacio de konduto pli kun malpli, do, se la akuzito individuo eksproprietigo de "adversaj posedo" Ordenanza estos konsiderita sukcesa inversa malobservo. Kiun la akuzito eksproprietigo de la tero, semas kaj barilo kun sepsa tankoj malgrau016d la fakto ke posedajxo, sed estas nenia evidenta tubo intenco, sed alprenanta la akuzito sen interrompo por grandskala plantado en la lando, kaj la akuzito estas devigata siaj propraj ekstera konduto de homoj asertas esti la mastroj de la lando, en tiu senco, la plantado estas la tubo intenco, eu0109 se la barilo kaj sepsaj tankoj ne atingis la "adversaj okupacio de la" tubo "intence plantitaj sur la tero "u0108i tiu kondiu0109o, sed planti en rilato al la konduto de la encroachment sekvas la linion de la" adversaj posedo ", estas sufiu0109a por konstitui la akuzito povas sukcese kontrau016d la okupado de la lando. Resume, mi pensas ke la akuzito, eu0109 se la individuo eksproprietigo de "adversaj posedo" havas u015dancon por sukcesi inversa malobservo.
（用谷歌浏览器翻译的。。。还是比较好用的谢谢）
西柚不是西游 -
Q4: evidence provided by the defendant, if it is to encroach on the behavior to conform to the "inverse right to encroach on the two conditions of" inverse infringement or of individual behavior in order to be successful to achieve the above two conditions may succeed reverse infringement?
A: I think if the defendant has two among your many embezzlement in accord with "inverse right encroach on" two conditions, namely, "in fact tube in a" and "intention" both conform to, according to the case judgment defendants have reverse infringement is based on "inverse right encroach on" regulations, no requirement on embezzlement of more and less, therefore, should be the defendant"s individual behavior conforms to the "inverse right encroach on" regulations be successful against infringement. Of embezzlement of defendants on the land, planting and fence and septic tanks, though in fact tube in a, but there is no clear tube have the intention, but assume that the defendant uninterrupted for large-scale cultivation, on the land and the defendant on the land used to rely on their own in the cultivation of the behavior of foreign people claim to be the owner of the land, in this sense, growing is a clear tube with intention, even if the fencing and septic tank does not reach "inverse power occupation" in the "intent" this condition, but in terms of planting the embezzlement, and is in line with the "inverse power occupy", also enough constitute the defendant may be successful inverse occupy the land. Above all, I think the defendant even if individual behavior to "reverse right encroach on" condition has a chance to success against infringement.