1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases after closing the part of Article 2-B(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The part of the court's explanation is as follows: "Next, the defendant actively established a compensation plan for each land of this case by the plaintiff, who is a public agency, and then sent an official document to the defendant. Accordingly, considering that the defendant also conducted a survey on each land of this case with a private fund and then sent the survey result to the plaintiff, the plaintiff should have waived the prescription interest on each land of this case, or that the plaintiff's assertion of prescription acquisition against the above speech and behavior should not be accepted since it violates the principle of good faith, the gold-ro principle, or the principle of protection of trust.

However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the possessor renounced the prescriptive benefit as to the real estate solely on the ground that the possessor offered a proposal to purchase the real estate to the owner after the expiration of the prescriptive period for possession. Moreover, in light of all the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant did not exercise the right as the owner of each of the instant land, and the current form of occupation and use of each of the instant land, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s assertion on prescriptive acquisition is contrary to the principle of good faith, the doctrine of speech, or the principle of protection of trust. The Defendant’s above assertion also has no merit.

A person shall be appointed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.