The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that a public official in charge sold the above land to a third party and intentionally caused the transfer of ownership to a third party without properly verifying that the ownership of the land No. 2 and 3 before the instant partition was returned to N, the original owner, in accordance with the relevant laws.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether there was intentional negligence, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription on the ground that the point at which the Plaintiff suffered actual loss of Plaintiff’s ownership due to the loss of Plaintiff’s ownership is the time when the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the titleholder

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the starting point of extinctive prescription, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.