1. Each of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant G and H shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs corresponding to the above revoked part shall be the defendant.

1. The grounds for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the amended party members are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendants, as to the completion of the statute of limitations for Defendant F’s possession, purchased the instant land from S around 1970 and occupied it in peace and openly with the intent of possession, such as continuing possession and management of the instant land from around 1970 to the present time. As such, the statute of limitation for possession acquisition was completed around 1990, around 190 after 20 years from around 1970 as to the instant land. As such, Defendant F’s assertion that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant G and the right to claim ownership transfer in the name of Defendant H are valid registrations consistent with the substantive legal relationship. However, there is no evidence to support that Defendant F purchased the instant land from S around 1970 and occupied the instant land. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the statute of limitations has expired for Defendant G’s assertion 1) since around 1994, when the registration of ownership preservation of the instant land was completed, Defendant F occupied the instant land in peace and openly with the intent of possession, such as continuing possession and management. Defendant G succeeded to Defendant F’s possession on around 201 and occupied the instant land in peace and openly and openly with the intent to own the instant land until then. As such, the statute of limitations has expired around 2014 when 20 years elapsed from around 1994. As such, the registration of ownership transfer in the instant name in Defendant G and the ownership transfer claim registration in Defendant H’s name are valid registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship. 2) If the registrant is continuously identical during the period of the prescriptive acquisition, the starting point is between the two.