1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the basic facts and the cause of the claim is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s “Defendant” and the Defendant’s “Defendant” on the basic facts of the first instance judgment other than each height of the Defendant’s clans No. 2, No. 11, 3, 15, 17, and 4, and 3, respectively; and (b) the judgment on the cause of the claim is identical to the part of the judgment on the grounds of the claim, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

2. Judgment on the argument of the defendant clan

A. The summary of the argument 1) The defendant clan purchased the land of this case before July 23, 1978 in order to use U and V as U and V memorials. 2) The defendant clan purchased the land of this case on August 22, 1981 and completed the registration of preservation of ownership of this case on August 22, 1981. The acquisition by prescription was completed by occupying the land of this case in good faith and public performance for ten years after the registration, and without negligence.

Furthermore, since the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant case was completed, the acquisition by possession was completed by the Defendant’s clan by occupying the instant land in peace and openly and with the intent of ownership for twenty (20) years.

3) Therefore, the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant clan is valid registration that conforms to the substantive relationship. B. 1) We first examine the argument on the purchase by the defendant clan.

It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant clan purchased the instant land before July 1, 1978 only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 6, 9, and 10 as shown in the Defendant clan’s argument and the testimony of W of the Party Witness W, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

This part of the defendant clans' assertion is without merit.

2) Next, we examine the argument on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by Defendant clan. (A) The starting point of reckoning the prescriptive acquisition by the relevant legal doctrine is not an indirect fact directly necessary for determining legal effect, but merely an indirect fact, the court may recognize the period of possession by means of litigation data, without being bound by the parties’ assertion on such assertion

Supreme Court Decision 199Na1488 delivered on May 12, 1998