1. As to the Plaintiff’s forest H 102485m2, Defendant B, with respect to shares of 3/26m2, the remaining Defendants are respectively 2.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) an organization has rules that have the nature of an association with its own objective and, on the basis of such rules, has an organization consisting of a decision-making body and a representative who is an executive body, etc., the organization itself exists, regardless of changes arising from the joining, withdrawal, etc. of its members, and where the organization itself has a method of representation, the operation of assembly or board of directors, etc., the composition of capital, the management of property, or other important matters as a non-corporate body are determined by its organization;

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Majority Opinion argues that the Defendant’s possession of a forest is a factual control over a person under a social concept, and that the Defendant’s possession of a forest does not necessarily refer to an objective relationship that appears to have a factual control over a person under a social concept, and that the Defendant’s possession of a forest does not necessarily refer to only physical and practical control, but should be determined in accordance with the social concept by taking into account the time, space and principal right relationship with the object, the possibility of exclusion of control over another person, etc. In particular, the transfer of possession of forest land or the continuation of possession does not necessarily require physical and practical control.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da202622 Decided May 29, 2014). In addition, even in cases where the transfer of ownership in the name of a third party has been completed between the time the acquisition by prescription for real estate was completed and the time the acquisition by prescription was completed, if the original possessor continues to occupy the real estate and the owner’s change took the starting point into account, if the occupancy period has expired again, the possessor may claim the completion of the second acquisition by taking the time of change in ownership in the future of the third party into account as the starting point of the acquisition by prescription.