1. Defendant B and D among each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, each of the 90/980 shares, and the Selection E shall be 175/980 shares, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. L has completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) by the Gwangju District Court Branch No. 7430, Dec. 31, 1973.

B. L died on August 10, 1980, and his heir had been legally spouse E, Defendant B (A), N (A), Appointor I, J (A), Defendant C (A), Defendant D (A), and Appointor K (A).

Of them, the Appointor E was the head of South and North, and the Appointor I was unmarried.

On the other hand, all of the above children in the family relations register were registered as M's children, but Defendant B and D are children born fromO other than M.

C. M died on May 29, 1987, and at that time, the Appointor I had already been married.

N died on August 3, 2018, and his heir F and children, who are legally spouse, are designated parties G and H.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate from O on March 11, 1988 and possessed it from that time until that time.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant B, D: The facts without dispute, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings under Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above fact of possession for twenty years, the Plaintiff occupies each of the real estate of this case for twenty years or more from March 11, 1988.

B. The intention of possession, which is the requirement for the possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession, is objectively determined by the nature of the source of possessory right: Provided, That if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, it is presumed that the possessor has possession with the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, and therefore, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove that the possessor is possession with the intention of possession with the nature