1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(attached Form). 2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) the owner on the registry of the instant forest was F at the time of November 20, 1976, but F was the actual owner of the instant forest by selling it to J, J to K, and K to L by selling it respectively.

On November 20, 1976, the Plaintiff purchased the forest of this case from L and constructed a building, such as eroding and eroding, bonds, etc., while a part of land is used as marine, and occupied and used in peace and public performance with the intention of ownership until now, the prescriptive acquisition on November 20, 196 was completed.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on November 20, 1996 with respect to one-third share of each of the instant woodland to the Plaintiff.

(2) In full view of the fact that F, the owner of the instant forest land registered under the Defendants’ registry, is a co-ownership of the Defendants, but the said forest actually belongs to M M, the Plaintiff commenced possession of the instant forest land without purchasing it from the owner of the said forest land; the Plaintiff leased the instant forest from the Defendant’s side to pay rent; and the Plaintiff conducted a boundary restoration survey of the Plaintiff-owned land adjacent to the instant forest land, the Plaintiff did not occupy the instant forest as its owner’s intent.

In addition, the Plaintiff does not occupy the entire forest of this case.

With respect to this part of the Defendants’ assertion, the following were made.

As examined in the part of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's assertion of the above possession is accepted, and it is no longer determined.

Therefore, the Defendants cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of the instant forest land.

B. The Plaintiff occupied the forest of this case.