1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall consist of a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where this court makes a decision to supplement the part of the plaintiff's dispute as to the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, this court cites it as it is in accordance

(However, the part against Co-Defendant C in the first instance trial, which became separate and conclusive. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal, the registered area on the He’s land in J-dong (hereinafter “N-dong”) purchased by Defendant D with respect to the gist of the grounds for appeal is not less than 126 square meters. The area actually occupied by Defendant D is more than 173 square meters in total, including part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff (37 square meters), and the area on which Defendant D actually occupied is more than that on the above registered area.

There is a substantial difference between H-126 square meters in the cadastral map of the circulation and transfer of the land actually possessed by Defendant D, and in the cadastral map, L roads are only limited between the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and the instant land.

The registered area on the public register of the land purchased by Defendant E is 327 square meters, and the area actually occupied by Defendant E, including part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, exceeds the area on the public register as much as the sum of L roads and O sites, including part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.

There is a substantial difference between the I large of 327 square meters in the cadastral map of the transfer of land actually possessed by Defendant E in the cadastral map, and in the cadastral map, the L road is only limited between the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and the instant land.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendants’ possession of part of the instant land ought to be deemed as the possession of the owner.

(A) The Majority Opinion argues that the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land was carried out by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land is presumed to have been carried out by his/her own will. As such, if the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear any responsibility for proving his/her own intention, and that the possessor’s possession is the owner of the instant land.