1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Attachment) 2. The reasoning for the plaintiffs' assertion and this part of this Court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of the first instance court Nos. 4, 12, 5, and 10 as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“3) The fact that a sewerage of 165 meters is laid underground on the ground of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as to whether the Defendant actually occupied each of the instant land as a de facto controller is laid underground. According to the entries in the evidence Nos. 5 through 11 (including each number), and witness K’s testimony, according to the Defendant’s statement in the evidence Nos. 5 through 11 (including each number), the land E in the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the site for the elderly center”) where each of the instant land is located.

B It may be recognized that after purchasing on December 9, 2002 and around 2003, a new construction of a senior citizens' center on the above land was made, and the fact that the access road was packed in front of the senior citizens' center at the time.

However, in light of the following circumstances as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant occupied each of the instant land as a de facto controlling entity by means of installing sewerage on the underground of the land listed in the attached Table No. 1 or packing construction on each of the instant land, etc., solely based on the facts acknowledged earlier, in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 9, 15, 28, and 30 and the witness K at the trial. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) The sewerage laid underground in the underground of the land specified in attached Table 1 shall only be deemed to have been constructed at the time of the construction of a road, but the timing or contractor of the underground is not verified.

(2) The site for the elderly hall shall not be adjacent to each of the land of this case.