1. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff each of the Defendants’ shares in the attached list among the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. The following facts are found to be of no dispute between the parties or to be recognized by comprehensively considering the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 12 (including paper numbers):

A. From March 1950, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land by setting up a farming shed on the instant land from March 1950.

B. The net Q completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land on March 24, 1958, and the net Q died on April 1, 1973. The Defendants, as the inheritors of net Q, are as shown in the attached list.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is presumed that the Plaintiff had occupied the instant land from March 3, 1950 to the date of the closing of argument, and that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for not less than 20 years retroactively from December 31, 1990, claiming the date of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, and it is presumed that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land, and that the Plaintiff has occupied the instant land in peace and openly and openly by his own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the prescriptive acquisition as to the Plaintiff’s instant land was completed on December 31, 199, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the possession of the land in this case was the possession by the plaintiff, so it is presumed that the possessor was the possession by the intention of the owner. Thus, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove that the possession is the possession by his own nature of the possessor, and the possessor bears the burden of proving the possession by the other party who asserts that the possession by the possessor is the possession by the owner is the possession by the owner by the intention of the owner. The presumption of the possession by the owner is reversed or cannot be viewed as the possession by the nature of the possessor, even in cases where the possessor assertss the title of the possession by himself, such as the sale and purchase, but is not recognized as such, even if the possessor does not have the right of possession by himself, the presumption of the possession by the owner by the nature of the possessor, or

Rather, A.