The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the land of this case was nationalized as a river area under Article 3 of the former River Act at least in 1979. In light of the records, the lower court’s fact-finding and determination as above are just and there were no errors in

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, this part of the ground of appeal by the plaintiff is an issue of the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which is a fact-finding court, and cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the records in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that E, a title holder of the land division and land category change before the land category change, and E, a title holder of the Plaintiff, cannot be seen as the same person, based on the circumstances in its

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court merely determined that the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land No. 4 was completed, and it did not render a judgment on the presumption of right to the Defendant Foundation or presumption that E or descendants transferred the said land to a third party, as alleged in the ground of appeal on this part, on the sole ground that the registration of recovery was completed in the name of the foundation prior to change of the name of the Defendant Foundation, as alleged in

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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.