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 the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiffs added the same judgment as that of the following 2. Additional Judgment on the matters claimed additionally in the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion asserts that the deceased J exclusively occupied each of the instant real estate with the intent to own it, on the premise that the relationship between the deceased J, Defendant D, and the network N was established with respect to each of the instant real estate and I, and L land.

B. Even if one co-owner occupies all of the co-owners, the co-owned real estate is the possession of another co-owner within the scope of shares of another co-owner by nature of the source of authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da51861, Jul. 26, 1996). In order to convert the possession of another co-owned real estate into an independent possession, the intention of the possession should be expressed to the person who occupies another co-owner with a new title

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu95 Decided April 11, 1989). Meanwhile, in cases where a co-owner, who owns or occupies only a certain part in a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, claims that he/she acquired and possessed a specific part of the previous co-ownership with a title capable of independent possession, such as sale and purchase, and that he/she purchased or occupied real estate owned by another co-owner, there is no need to regard it differently from the case where he/she claims that he/she purchased or occupied real estate owned by another co-owner. Thus, even if the right of acquisition is not recognized, the presumption of autonomous possession cannot be reversed or that he/she owns it with the nature of the source of the right of possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da68750, Mar. 28, 2013). Such sectionally owned co-ownership relationship specifies