1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: Gap evidence submitted at the court of first instance, which lacks to recognize the plaintiff’s assertion, shall be rejected, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) Part 6 of the third party decision of the first instance court "the defendant and his family members" are "the defendant F and the defendant's mother I", subparagraph 8 of the same paragraph is " Eul Nos. 2, 3 and 6", and "this court" is "the court of the first instance", respectively.

(b)the following shall be added between the third and third directions of the first instance judgment:

“F died in around 1987, and I died in September 2004, and the Defendant was succeeded to the instant building from F and I.

(c) in Part 14 of the fourth decision of the first instance court, “Defendant” is deemed to be “F or I, who is the parent of the Defendant,” and “Defendant” in Part 17 is deemed to be “F or I, who is the parent of the Defendant.”

The following are added to the fourth sentence of the first instance court's decision, "the acquisition by prescription has been completed" of the seventeenth sentence.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserts that the possession of F or I is the possession of another owner, it is insufficient to see such presumption only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and to recognize the fact that F and I are the possession of another owner. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the evidence adopted earlier, F and I did not have the demand from the Plaintiff for the payment of rent or the return of land for over a period of more than a hundred million years since possession of the disputed land, and there is only a circumstance where the Plaintiff can recognize the possession of land independently, such as the lack of sight due to the issue of land possession. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.