The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of real property of this case, the lower court stated that the Plaintiff: (a) although it is recognized as having installed a grave of E and K on the land of this case, the Plaintiff exchanged part of the G land owned by E and H land after division; (b) there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff did not have registered ownership transfer under the name of E in relation to the G land and H land after division; (c) the Plaintiff sent the content-proof mail to the Defendant on February 15, 2006, and the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the Defendant’s M on the land of this case; (d) the Plaintiff did not know of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the other party to the above exchange contract was F; and (e) it did not appear to have been consistent with the Plaintiff’s request for cultivation and management of the land of this case from 1 to 1970; and (e) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the Plaintiff’s testimony of the instant land of this case for 10 years after the Plaintiff’s request for cultivation.