1. The plaintiffs' appeal is 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 basic facts;

2. The grounds for this part of the allegations by the parties are as follows: (a) except for adding Gap evidence No. 12-1 to No. 12-3 to No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance (which is the grounds for recognition), the grounds for this part are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

3. Determination

A. In order to recognize the prescription period for the acquisition of possession, the possessor must occupy the pertinent real estate in peace and openly with the intent to own it for twenty (20) years (Article 245(1) of the Civil Act). As the plaintiff claiming the prescription period, he/she shall be liable to prove the fact of “Possession” of the instant

On the other hand, possession of an object refers to an objective state under the factual control of a person under the social concept. To be deemed to have a factual control, it is not necessarily a mere physical or practical control over an object, but should be determined in conformity with the social concept by taking into account the time, space and principal relationship with a person, possibility of excluding others’ control, etc.

In particular, the transfer of possession of forest land or the continuation of possession does not necessarily require physical and practical control, and the transfer of management or use should be deemed to have existed if there is delivery. However, the registration of preservation of ownership is not premised on the transfer of the relevant land, contrary to the registration of transfer, and thus, the registration titleholder cannot be deemed to have been transferred possession from another person at that time on the ground that the registration titleholder completed the preservation registration.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da201410, Jul. 11, 2013). (B)

According to the images of evidence Nos. 6, 10-1, 2, and 7, the real estate owned by the Plaintiff is indicated in the cadastral map copy of the former Go Chang-gun L issued by Go Chang-gun around 1984 from Go Chang-gun, and the real estate owned by the Plaintiff was not indicated, and the real estate owned by the Plaintiff and the instant case are real estate owned by the Plaintiff.