1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation by the court of first instance are as follows: “Defendant” under the third sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance and each “Defendant” under the fourth sentence shall be deleted from each other; and except for addition of the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion in the appellate trial as described in the following paragraph (2), it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; thus, it shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants’ assertion in the appellate trial of the Defendants did not have resided in the instant land. Rather, they asserted ownership of the instant land when the Plaintiff’s father Q Q occupied the instant land, and on December 30, 2005, prior to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have occupied the instant land in a peaceful manner for 20 years.

Pursuant to the concept of society, possession, which is the requirement for acquisition by prescription, refers to the objective relationship that appears to be in the factual control of a person. In order to be de facto control, it does not necessarily mean only physical and real control, but also includes direct possession, indirect possession, as well as direct possession, in consideration of the time, space and principal right relationship with a person, possibility of exclusion from control of another person, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da8888 delivered on February 24, 1998). In addition, peaceful possession is a possession in which the possessor does not use any act of coercion that is not legally acceptable in the acquisition or possession of such possession. The performing possession refers to a possession that is not a possession of any gift but a possession. Thus, there was a legal dispute between the parties as to the existence of an objection by the person who asserts that such possession was illegal, or as to the ownership of an object of possession.

8.2