1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The description of the defendant of the judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. J (Death on July 24, 1984) completed the registration of transfer of ownership on August 28, 1980 with respect to the area of 1,494 square meters prior to I in the Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and on December 2, 1994, the area of 1,494 square meters prior to I was divided into the instant land and the area of 36 square meters prior toO.

B. K is the wife of J, and the Defendants are the children of K and J.

C. As the J dies, among the land in this case, Defendants C, D, E, F, and H are 4/3 of each of 33, Defendant C, D, E, F, and H respectively, and Defendant G completed each registration of ownership transfer under the old Family Court’s netcheon Branch Registry of the Gwangju District Court on the ground of inheritance as of July 24, 1984, as of each of 1/33 of each of their respective shares.

As K died on February 18, 1995, the Defendants, who were children of K, succeeded to the shares in the land of this case. Accordingly, among the land of this case, Defendant B, Defendant C, D, E, F, and H acquired the ownership of each share of 13/231, and Defendant G acquired the ownership of each share of 48/231, Defendant C, D, F, and H.

E. On the other hand, on January 6, 1983, the plaintiff lent the repayment period of KRW 1 million to the defendant B as the end of December 1984, and the defendant B has not yet repaid this.

F. On February 15, 1985, the Plaintiff was issued by Defendant B a certificate of registration in the name of J as to the instant land, and a transcript of the certificate of registration in the name of J as to the Defendants (hereinafter “certificate of registration and a copy of the register”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 4 and No. 7 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff continued to occupy the land of this case from February 20, 1986 to the present time, and the images of evidence No. 3-1 to No. 8 are insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is presumed to have occupied the land of this case in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own will for not less than 20 years (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and therefore, on February 20, 1986.