1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following sub-paragraph 2, following the fourth part of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The addition is referred to.

The defendant's assertion and its decision (1) (1) The defendant's husband, who is the defendant's husband, occupied the part of the crime of this case in a peaceful performance with his intention from around 1986, and the defendant also inherited the part of the crime of this case from the deceased H on September 20, 2005, and possessed the part of the crime of this case in a peaceful performance with his intention to hold it up to the present day. Thus, the acquisition by prescription for the part of the crime of this case is completed. Thus, the plaintiffs' request cannot be complied

(2) Determination is based on the premise that the possessor has occupied the real estate owned by another person in a peaceful and public performance manner (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). However, in a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission despite the knowledge of the absence of legal requirements, such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of commencement of possession, barring any special circumstance, the possessor does not reject the ownership of another person and does not have an intention to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intent to own is broken.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings as to this case’s health team, the advanced evidence, and the evidence No. 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply). In other words, the network H newly constructed the adjacent building on the neighboring land of this case and completed registration of preservation of ownership on April 22, 1986. The network H around that time built part of the stairs of the adjacent building of this case in the course of the crime against the land of this case.