The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant occupied the instant inherited tea stocks as a possession assistant without any other cause, such as donation, sale, etc., after the death of E.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the concept and requirements of the occupation assistant, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Defendant constitutes a reference heir with respect to the instant inherited borrowed stocks, and that the Plaintiff’s seek the return of the instant borrowed stocks against the Defendant on the ground of inheritance constitutes a claim for inheritance recovery.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept and requirements of the successor to the title.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the portion of the claim for the delivery of shares in the lawsuit of this case was unlawful as it was filed ten years after the exclusion period under Article 999(2) of the Civil Act, since it is evident that the “B money property” among the deceased E’s notarial will can be interpreted as all the remaining property not included in the list of inherited property attached to the above deed and that the heir’s decision should be entrusted to P, a executor, who will be the executor.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the lower court’s reasoning is somewhat inappropriate, it determined that the part of the claim for the delivery of shares among the instant lawsuit is unlawful for more than 10 years, which is set forth in Article 99(2) of the Civil Act.