beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court shall decide whether the allegation of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and the principle of equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not exceed
(Article 432 of the same Act). This part of the grounds of appeal is to dispute the fact-finding by the court below concerning the period of possession of the part of the land of the deceased E and the plaintiff, and it is merely an error of the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.
In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the lapse and completion of the period of acquisition by prescription or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, this part of the ground of appeal is contrary to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act that presumes the possessor’s intention and the peaceful performance and possession of the Plaintiff, and its presumption is broken. As such, since it is a new argument in the final appeal, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal as to the judgment below.
In addition, even after examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal in its judgment that the Plaintiff’s possession is presumed as possession of
3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court, on the ground as indicated in its reasoning, constitutes a violation of social order and thus, constitutes a ground for invalidation. Defendant B is the Plaintiff.