1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance is justifiable). The court of second instance decides that “ September 10, 1963” was “ September 10, 1960.”

The second sentence of the first instance judgment is followed by 3-2.

B. The land in this case is not an urban planning road, but the form and status of the land in this case are in the shape of a runway of 1.5 to 3.0 meters wide, and the passage between H, I, J, K, L, and M with land, etc., and has the function as a national map. In fact, the remaining land except the part occupied by the plaintiffs among the land in this case is packed in asphalt or sidewalk block and is used as a road where vehicles can pass, and the Republic of Korea or the defendant is registered and managed as administrative property, and the two last parallels to one third parallels of the judgment of the court of first instance in the judgment of "The land in this case is registered and managed as administrative property."

[Grounds for Recognition] The third party 11-12 of the first instance judgment of "the defendant seems to have followed the fact, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 9, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings" is "the defendant seems to have followed it," and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition and there is no other counter-proof."

The following shall be added to the third instance judgment:

It is examined whether the acquisition by prescription has been completed even if the occupied portion of the plaintiffs constitutes general property subject to prescriptive acquisition.

When constructing a building on its own land, the boundary line with the adjoining land shall be confirmed accurately.