1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.The reduction of claims by this court.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance and the addition of the judgment

2. The modified part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to the "real estate listed in the attached Form No. 2, 3 (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate listed in the attached Table") to the "real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case")."

3. The defendant asserts that the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession of the building of this case has expired since the father F used the building of this case by constructing and using the building of this case, and the defendant continuously occupied and used the building of this case.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant continuously occupied and used the instant building upon the donation from the father F around 1963, based on the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6-2, 11, 12-1, 2, 20, 21, and 6-1, which included only the facts that the instant building was managed from around September 9, 1986, which were designated as the Jeollabuk-do folklore. Rather, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 3, 12, and 6-1 of the evidence Nos. 6, it is only recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

However, the decision of the court of first instance is delivered with the decision of the court, since the decision of this court was modified by the reduction of the plaintiff's claim, it is so decided as per Disposition.