토지인도
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case in this case are as follows: "L was killed on July 27, 1968; L was dead on July 27, 1968;" the part concerning "6/13 shares" of the first instance court's first instance court's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's "7/13 shares"; "five days" of the second 20th ground's second instance's first instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's "six days of burial"; "five days of burial" of the fifth 7th instance's fifth instance's first instance's first instance's fifth instance's first instance's first instance's fifth instance's first instance's second instance's first instance's first instance's first instance's second instance's first instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's fifth
2. On the part 3. Defenses
A. Defendant B, C, D, E, and I’s assertion on November 23, 1974: (a) purchased each of the forest of this case on November 24, 1994 and occupied it in a peaceful manner with the intent to own the forest of this case for twenty (20) years thereafter, and acquired by prescription on November 24, 194; and (b) Defendant B solely succeeded to the right of network W as to each of the forest of this case; (c) Defendant C, D, E, and I, who installed or managed each of the forest of this case under the consent of Defendant B and Defendant B, who is entitled to seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of each of the forest of this case, cannot be deemed to have occupied the forest of this case as the owner of each of the forest of this case for twenty (20) years from November 23, 1974 on the sole ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion was installed in each of the forest of this case.
Since the certificate of sale of No. 8, which is the basis for the above Defendants’ self-owned possession, cannot be recognized as the establishment of the authenticity, W cannot be deemed to have purchased each forest of this case on the basis of this, and W was already well aware of the fact that W had no authority to dispose of each forest of this case to the next son of the net L, and therefore, W’s possession constitutes the possession of a ship on November 24, 1994, and therefore, W’s possession constitutes the possession of a ship.