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

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

(However, the lower court asserts that the presumption of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land was reversed, such as that the instant land was purchased as the Plaintiff V, and that the Plaintiff’s “PlaintiffO” in the last 3rd part of the judgment of the first instance, and the 8th 4-5th “the acquisition by prescription” was completed. The Plaintiffs asserts that the presumption of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land was reversed, as the instant land was purchased by the State.

However, in light of the various circumstances, including the fact that the instant land was used as a local area from December 1, 1938 to the point of view, as well as the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited above, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant land was the land purchased by the State or the presumption of possession of the Defendant’s possession was reversed, even if all the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs were collected, and there is no other sufficient evidence to deem otherwise.

The plaintiffs' arguments are not accepted.

All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed for lack of reason.