All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) the deceased AD, the owner of the land prior to the instant land substitution, is the same as the deceased’s supervisor AD and the same person; and (b) the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of liquidation money against the Defendants constitutes the rights to the deceased’s inherited property; and (c) the existence of an inheritor was confirmed as not certain since it was impossible to identify the deceased, the owner of the land prior to the instant land substitution; and (d) thereby, constitutes a cause for the interruption of prescription as stipulated in Article

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, it is justifiable for the lower court to accept the second defense of the Plaintiff’s suspension of prescription and to reject the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription.

In so doing, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for the suspension of prescription under Article 181 of the Civil Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

Therefore, all appeals are 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.