All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in a lawsuit, the right to claim the return of possession of the object under Article 204(1) of the Civil Act is recognized as a right to protect the possession itself regardless of whether or not the principal right exists, so it is sufficient to prove the fact that the plaintiff occupied the object, but was deprived of by the defendant, and there is no need to prove that the possession of the object

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit cannot be deemed as having no interest in the lawsuit is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interest in the lawsuit in possession recovery, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower court, based on adopted evidence, acknowledged the fact that the Defendants deprived of the Plaintiffs’ possession of each of the instant lands on December 26, 201, and rejected the Defendants’ assertion that there was an urgent need to recover possession for the progress of the Corporation, and accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking delivery of each of the instant lands. On the premise that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs currently occupied each of the instant lands, the lower court rejected all of the Defendants’ counterclaims claim against the Plaintiffs seeking delivery of each of the instant lands.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below’s fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.