beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the fact that the status of the possession of K and L among the N land in the first instance judgment is changed to “K and L among the N land is as follows.” The current status of K and L among the N land is the same as that indicated in the relevant part. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judgment
The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs succeeded to the ownership or possession of each of the lands of this case, thereby occupying the above land for 20 years, and the prescriptive prescription has been completed on each date listed in the attached Table 4, and therefore the defendants are liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the above land to each of the plaintiffs' co-ownership. The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' possession constitutes the possession of the land, and all of the claims of this case are groundless.
The issue of whether the possession by a possessor of the relevant legal doctrine is an autonomous possession or a possession without the intention of possession is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, not by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that is the cause of the acquisition of possession or by all circumstances related to the possession. Therefore, it is proved that the possessor acquired the possession on the basis of the title that the possessor is deemed to have no intention of ownership due to its nature, or that the possessor is not deemed to possess the possession with the intent of exercising exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding the ownership of another person. In other words, it is proved that there is an objective circumstance that the possessor does not have an intention of denying the ownership of another person and does not have an intention of possession, such as where the possessor does not normally and objectively, if the possessor expresses his/her intention of not taking an ordinary position if he/she did not act with the owner,