1. The defendant shall remove the real estate stated in paragraph 3 of the attached list to the plaintiffs, and it shall be listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 6 and the result of appraiser D's appraisal, the plaintiffs may recognize the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on September 22, 198 as to each of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table No. 4229 and 42230 (hereinafter "the land of this case"), and the defendant owned the buildings listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 on the land of this case (hereinafter "the building of this case").

According to the above facts, the defendant illegally occupied the land of this case by owning the building of this case on the ground, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the right to occupy the land of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs, the owner of the land of this case, have the duty to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since the defendant purchased the land of this case attached to the building of this case together with the building of this case and officially possessed it with the intention of ownership for at least 40 years, the acquisition by prescription for possession of the land of this case cannot comply with the plaintiffs' claims.

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's possession of the land of this case constitutes the possession of a third party as a bad faith without permission.

According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, since an occupant of an object is presumed to have occupied it as his/her own intention, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention in cases of claiming the acquisition by prescription. Rather, the possessor bears the burden of proof to a person who denies the establishment of the acquisition by prescription by asserting that the possessor has no intention to own. As to the prescription for the acquisition by prescription for the possession of real estate, whether the possessor is an autonomous possession or a third-party possession with no intention to own is not determined by the internal deliberation of