1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment were succeeded to the possession of D and H, and the part of the site for the instant house and warehouse of this case, which is part of the building site for the instant house and warehouse, has been occupied in peace and public performance with the intention to own them for the period from July 4, 1989, and thus, the prescription period for possession and acquisition has expired.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in the whole of the evidence revealed above, the fact that the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the factory site of this case and used it as the factory site, and that the plaintiff's attached D purchased the forest land of this case and soil collection and warehouse constructed thereon from E and F around October 198, and reconstructed it into the house and warehouse of this case from July 4, 1989, and resided in the house of this case. The house and warehouse of this case are located on the ground of part of the area inside the territory of the Republic of Korea on the ship of this case. The plaintiff is recognized as having been using it as the finishing of the house and warehouse of this case, such as Do, Do, Do, Do, and Do, etc., by dividing the whole area inside the ship of this case into the factory site of this case into the

Meanwhile, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his own intention, but if the possessor illegally occupied the article owned by another person without permission with the knowledge of the absence of the legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da41893, Jan. 14, 200), the presumption of possession with the intent to own is broken (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da41893, Jan. 14, 200), i.e., the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s attached DoD purchased a vinyl house and its site on the ground of the E and F around October 198.