1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and incidental appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The trial;

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: Gap evidence 16, 17, which is not sufficient to admit the plaintiff's assertion as additional evidence submitted in the court of first instance; Eul evidence 10, 11 which is insufficient to admit the defendant's testimony and U, V's primary argument; and Eul evidence 10, 11 which is not sufficient to admit the defendant's primary argument. The court of first instance's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgment following the 9th letter of the court of first instance No. 9 and the 5th letter of the court of first instance

3) In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the presumption of autonomous possession is reversed because the deceased I or the defendants did not object to the registration of ownership transfer of the site of this case before the plaintiff filed the counterclaim of this case. Rather, the plaintiff argued that the deceased I purchased the site of this case from the deceased H on June 29, 1985 in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, which was later than 1983, the deceasedI or the defendants argued that the presumption of autonomous possession should be reversed since he did not object to the registration of ownership transfer, although the ownership transfer of the deceased H was completed in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership, the deceased I or the defendants did not object to the above registration of ownership transfer, and that the deceased I or the defendants did not object to the above registration of ownership transfer under the name of the deceased or the defendant, but it was not acknowledged that the deceased evidence of the above non-indicted No. 1 and No. 7 of this case's testimony and evidence No. 981 of each of this case's testimony.