1. An appeal against the principal claim and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) added this Court to this Court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, except for the part added or emphasized by the Defendants in the trial, and the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the interruption of the statute of limitations, H made a promise to sell and purchase the instant land in form with B, etc., but in fact made a sales contract and paid the purchase price in full. Furthermore, since it cannot be the act of practically delivering or transferring real estate, which is goods of a nature that cannot be moved differently from movable property, the transfer of real estate is in essence conceptual nature. Therefore, it is impossible to present evidence that the seller actually transferred the ownership of the instant land, and the possession after the seller sold the land is converted into the possession of another and the buyer is directly transferred to the buyer. Ultimately, as B, etc. occupied the instant land by delivery, the statute of limitations has not run, and the Plaintiff is obliged to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with shares of inheritance.2) Determination on possession refers to the objective relationship that appears to have been under the control of a person under the concept of society, and thus, it is not always possible to physically control the said land in light of the concept of possession and social control, in particular, the ownership of the instant land should be determined based on the concept of time and space.