1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

A. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the attached Form 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 2, 2,9 square meters of H forest land in Chungcheongnam-gun

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 of the facts of recognition as follows.

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 2,989 square meters of H forest in Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. The Defendants are to enter the text in the ship.

(a) The whole area and the area in a ship;

(b) A ship with part of tending treeter and part of it;

(c) Possession of each part as a grave.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, barring special circumstances, are on the ship to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant forest land.

(c) Mining a grave in part and a ship;

(a).

C. There is a duty to deliver the part.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The defendants' defenses on the above ship

(a).

C. The part was known to be not the Plaintiff’s ownership but the Defendants’ ownership. Since it was occupied for 20 years, the acquisition by prescription was completed.

Therefore, the defendants are liable for damages.

(a).

(c) have the right to possess the part;

B. In full view of the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraisal appraiser I and the purport of the entire pleadings, the sum of the areas occupied by the Defendants is equal to 774 square meters. The place where the instant forest land exists is not infinite, and there are no special circumstances to mislead the Plaintiff as the Defendants’ forest land. In light of such circumstances, the Defendants’ possession is acknowledged as illegal possession.

Therefore, with the intent of the Defendants, the above ship

(a).

C. Since the part cannot be deemed to have been occupied, it cannot be deemed that the prescription period for possession has expired.

The defendants' defenses against this is eventually groundless.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.