1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the following is added to the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

In addition, “In addition, whether the possessor’s possession is an autonomous possession or a possession without the intention of possession is not determined by the internal intention of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that is the cause of the acquisition of possession or all circumstances related to the possession (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da15094, Jul. 28, 201). As alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff purchased the land before the subdivision from H on June 7, 1972. As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the land category was changed from the land before the subdivision of this case on August 25, 1970 to the road, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff purchased the said D portion of the land already incorporated into the road at the time, even if the Plaintiff purchased the land before the subdivision of this case on the same day. Therefore, even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff had occupied the land after a certain point of time, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff owned the land as the owner of this case.”

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.