1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties; there is evidence Nos. 1 to 12; evidence Nos. 1 to 12; testimony of witnesses of the first instance court; and fact inquiry into X-section of the first instance court; and the purport of the whole pleadings. A.

N on July 6, 1948, with respect to the share of 4/7 square meters among the 3,478 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and M, with respect to the share of 3/7 square meters among the above land on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer is completed in each of its names

B. On January 17, 1949, theO completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on December 10, 1948 with respect to 4/7 shares owned by N among the above U land.

C. TheO died on January 17, 1986, and the plaintiffs jointly inherited their properties. M died on July 10, 1986, and the Defendants, their children, jointly inherited their properties. D.

O cultivated and occupied all of the above U land from around 1951 to the time of death.

E. The instant U land was divided into the instant land on October 29, 2012.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted that, since theO purchased 3/7 shares of the instant land from M in around 1951, it occupied in peace and public performance with intent to own it for twenty (20) years, and the prescriptive acquisition has been completed on or around December 31, 1971, the Defendants, the inheritors of M, are liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of prescriptive acquisition with respect to 3/7 shares of the instant land from the O’s heir.

According to the above facts, the O occupied the instant land for 20 years from around 1951 to December 31, 1971.

I would like to say.

However, since the instant land was owned by theO and M separately at the ratio of 4/7, 3/7, and 3/7, it is deemed that the Plaintiff, one of co-owners, occupies the entire land of this case, barring any special circumstances, it is deemed that it is the possession within the scope of M’s share ratio by nature of title, barring any other special circumstance