1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stipulated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Following the first instance court’s 5th sentence “No. 12” added the following descriptions to “No. 11th sentence of the first instance court’s 5th sentence (“No. 5th sentence”) with “No. 14th sentence of the first instance court’s 5th sentence”. The Plaintiff asserted that the portion of the instant possession was occupied in the first instance court for 20 years from December 31, 1971 to December 31, 191 and acquired prescription. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of possession during the above period, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

"At the end of the 6th through 16th regular decision of the court of first instance, the following items shall be deleted, and at the end of the 12th regular decision, the plaintiff asserts that the transfer registration of ownership constitutes a comprehensive succession since one of the co-inheritors succeeded to the status of the original owner through an agreement on the division of inherited property. However, since one of the co-inheritors succeeded to the status of the original owner after the expiration of the period for acquiring the right of retention of real estate due to possession acquired the inherited property of another heir, the heir who acquired the inherited property cannot be deemed to be a new interested party after the expiration of the period for prescription. As seen above, insofar as the transfer registration of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant with respect to the remaining shares owned by the successors on March 13, 206, the registration was actually completed due to transfer, and thus, it is held liable for the plaintiff to assert and prove that the registration was caused by the division of inherited property through Narar agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da2283, Sep. 28, 1993).