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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The alleged content AF does not obtain the permission to extract aggregate or the permission to collect aggregate with respect to the forest of this case, and only obtain the permission to collect aggregate with respect to AL adjacent to the forest of this case. Thus, AF does not have possession of the forest of this case.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff occupied the forest of this case from April 7, 1994, which entered into a sales contract with AF for the forest of this case, the statute of limitations was interrupted by actively responding to the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff on October 30, 2013, which was before the lapse of 20 years from the Defendants.

B. The possession of the object to be determined refers to the objective relationship that appears to be in a person's factual control under the social concept, and is not necessarily the mere physical and real control over the object, but should be determined in accordance with the concept of society in consideration of the time, spatial relationship with the object, principal right relationship, possibility of exclusion of control by others, etc. In particular, the transfer of possession of forest land or the continuation of possession does not necessarily require physical and realistic control, but must be deemed to have taken delivery when there is transfer of management or use. If ownership of forest land is transferred, it is the ordinary form of transaction to exercise the control over it, and the continuation of possession is presumed to have been presumed to have been possessed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da38266 delivered on October 23, 1992, see Supreme Court Decision 91Da38266 delivered on April 23, 199).