The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party), appointed parties, and the defendant is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation Costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s mother claimed by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s mother of August 22, 2006) purchased and occupied the land of KRW 1,719 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the F’s mother (non-G) before the D, Jeonbuk-gun, and the Plaintiff’s father died around September 28, 1974, and donated the instant land to the Plaintiff by installing a H’s grave on the instant land.

From September 28, 1974 to September 28, 1994, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for a period of 20 years, and the possession is presumed to be the possession in which it was peace and public performance with the intention of possession.

On the other hand, the defendant (Appointed Party), the designated parties, and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") own the land of this case according to their corresponding shares of shares, as they are those who inherit or inherit the share of the land of this case from G (Death on April 10, 1969), the registered title holder of the land of this case, or who succeed to the shares of this case by inheritance or substitute inheritance, or succeed to the shares from their successors.

The Plaintiff completed the prescription of acquisition by possession of the instant land on September 28, 1994. As such, at the time of the completion of the prescription, the Defendants sharing the instant land in accordance with the pertinent share ratio (attached Form 2) with respect to the ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the prescription of acquisition by possession on the instant land.

2. Although the determination of Gap’s evidence No. 8 alone constituted a grave on the land of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the grave was a grave of his father H, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if high-H graves were installed on the land of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case for 20 years from September 28, 1974 to September 28, 1994 only due to such circumstance or other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and it is otherwise recognized.