1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception that the judgment of this court is added to the plaintiffs' new arguments under the 10 last end of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the part added to the Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights, since the Plaintiffs’ exercise of rights or interruption of prescription was not impossible or remarkably difficult due to the Defendant’s error in cadastral adjustment and public study, and there were grounds for obstructing the Plaintiffs from exercising their rights.

The exercise of the obligor’s right of defense based on the statute of limitations is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our Civil Act. As such, in special cases where the obligor has made it impossible or remarkably difficult for the obligee to exercise his right or interruption of prescription prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, or acted to make it unnecessary to take such measures, or the obligee has objectively obstructed the obligee from exercising his right, or the obligor has shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations, or where the obligor has made the right holder trust it, the need to protect the obligee, or where other creditors under the same conditions receive the repayment of the obligation, etc., making it considerably unreasonable or unfair to allow the obligor to claim the completion of the statute of limitations as an

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da32332 Decided October 25, 2002, etc.). However, the specific contents of an individual legal system as prescribed by the positive law should be determined based on the principle of trust and good faith.