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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the case's determination on the merits of the first instance judgment No. 3, No. 17 of the first instance judgment (family determination). Thus, the court's explanation of this case is citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Even if the instant lawsuit is lawful, the right to claim the possession of the possessor of the instant land (Article 204 of the Civil Act) is a right recognized to protect himself/herself in cases where the possessor of the instant land was deprived of possession of the object without the possessor’s consent. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiffs occupied the instant land at the time when they were deprived of possession of possession of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In this regard, the Plaintiffs’ claim is without merit. (1) Although the instant lawsuit states that the area of the said house (Article 204 of the Civil Act) was considerably smaller than the area of the instant land (Article 204 square meters) from the point of view of the possessor of the possession of the said object, and even if the Plaintiffs were aware of it, considering the aforementioned facts, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiffs had possession of the instant land, including the entire area of the instant land, by December 19, 2016.