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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The plaintiff's assertion is different from the plaintiff's assertion" at the last 4th of the judgment of the first instance; "the 5th part of the first part is merely 2 or 16 years old"; "the 5th part is merely 4 or 16 years old," and "the 5th part is merely 4 or 16 years old," and "the 5th part is only 13 or 16 years old," which is insufficient to be admitted as evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's entire possession of the land in the dispute in this case after the net Q or his heir obtained permission for reclamation, added each statement of evidence No. 13 or No. 16 submitted at the trial of the court of first instance, and the plaintiffs' new assertion in the trial of the court of first instance is the same as the statement of the

2. The Plaintiffs asserts that the acquisition by prescription of possession on December 31, 1994, which was 20 years thereafter, was completed, since they occupied the land in peace and public performance as owned by the intent to own the land in question by leasing the land in question to U around 1974 by allowing the deceased Q Q or its inheritors to cultivate the land in question.

In light of the fact that the part of the land in question (49,590 square meters, approximately 15,00 square meters) was part of the land in question, which was 4,500 square meters for the land in question for which the deceased Q or his heir obtained the permission of reclamation on July 7, 1966, U’s written confirmation of cultivation (Evidence A No. 14-1) that he leased and cultivated the entire land in question to the entire land in question prior to beyond the above part of the permission of reclamation on July 1974, is insufficient to recognize that the deceased Q or its heir occupied the land in question from around 1974, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

As seen earlier, the presumption of possession by the deceased Q or their inheritors was broken with respect to the part permitted to develop land.

Under the premise that the net Q purchased the instant dispute land, the Plaintiffs were the landowner at the time of filing an application for land reclamation permit.