The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the acquisition of land of this case and payment of compensation, this part of the grounds of appeal is an issue of the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the lower court, and cannot be deemed a legitimate

Furthermore, even if examining the record in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, in so determining, that the Defendant, around January 26, 1989, provided the Plaintiff with compensation for each of the instant land and its ground buildings,

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the completion of the prescription for possession, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s prescriptive acquisition of each of the lands of this case was completed on January 26, 2009, based on its reasoning, is assumptive. As seen earlier, insofar as the lower court’s determination on the acquisition of each of the lands of this case is justifiable, the legitimacy of the above assumptive judgment does not affect any conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the allegation in the

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