1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reason why this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows: “The Network J”; “this Court” as “the first instance court”; “Appraiser” as “the appraiser of the first instance court”; and “ appraiser” as “the appraiser of the first instance court” is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The judgment network E, as to the cause of the claim, occupied the land of this case with F from around 1954 to around 1954, and died on January 18, 1974, and thereafter, the heir K and its children, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties, after K died on April 4, 200, continuously occupied the L and M by the Plaintiff and the designated parties, as seen earlier. Under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, it is presumed that the network E, K, the Plaintiff, and the designated parties occupied the land of this case by their own intent and openly and openly.

Therefore, as of August 19, 1987 after the expiration of twenty years from August 19, 1987, the acquisition by prescription of possession of the land of this case by the plaintiff and the designated parties was completed on August 19, 2007, the defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of prescription based on the inheritance shares indicated in the separate sheet as to each of the land of this case by the plaintiff and the designated parties.

In addition, the plaintiff and the designated parties can exercise the right of exclusion of disturbance based on the possessory right. Thus, the defendants are obligated to remove the steelside area and the steel network fence installed on the line connecting each point of the attached drawing Nos. 20, 19, 18, 26, 27, 15, and 14 among the land in this case.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants occupied the instant land from around 1954, and since the prescriptive acquisition was completed in around 1974, the Plaintiff and the designated parties did not file a claim against the State at the time for the transfer registration of ownership of the instant land, and the owner of the instant land was changed to the Defendants.