2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Therefore, the court's reasoning on this case is that "the part of the wall of the house" in Section 2, Section 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "a part of the stairs structure," and "the video of Section 2, Section 3, Section 20" is added to "the ground for recognition" in Section 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiffs deleted "the video of Section 3, Section 20" in the "the ground for recognition" in Section 2, Section 19 of the judgment of the court of second instance, and the plaintiffs' assertion that the court made is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the judgment on the claim for damages No. 4, Section 5

2. The Plaintiffs asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has not yet exceeded since E, the former owner of Defendant’s house, cannot be deemed to have acquired full ownership until he/she fully pays out the loan that he/she received as a house purchase fund. The Plaintiffs asserted that the full ownership should not be deemed to have been acquired, and that the full ownership should be deemed to have been acquired from November 27, 200, by cancelling the registration of prohibition of transfer, provision of security, etc. in the register of register as the full payment of the loan.

In light of the nature of the source of title that caused the acquisition of the possession or all circumstances related to the possession, the Defendant’s house is presumed to have been possessed as the owner’s intention. The issue of whether the possessor’s possession is the owner’s intention or the owner’s possession without the intention of possession is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but should be determined externally and objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da72743, Feb. 26, 2002).