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 of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following parts: (a) the third-party 12 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In order to say that “the possession of a thing” refers to the objective relationship in which a person is deemed to be in a factual control under the social concept and is de facto control, it shall not necessarily mean physical and practical control, and it shall be determined in conformity with social norms in view of the time, space and relationship between the thing and human rights, possibility of exclusion from control of others, etc. In particular, the transfer of possession of forest land or the continuation of possession does not necessarily require physical and practical control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da101353, 101360, Jul. 5, 2012), but it does not necessarily require a physical and practical control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 11, 21, 22, 28 Evidence No. 11, 11, 22, and 28 (including number), testimony of witness of the first instance court, and result of on-site verification of the first instance court. In short, the Plaintiff’s assertion that part of the land in this case was occupied for more than 2 years.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.