1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the evidence submitted in the trial of the court of first instance, which is not sufficient to recognize the defendants' assertion, and the witness Eul's testimony among the evidence submitted in the trial of the court of first instance, shall be rejected; (b) the "Witness" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "E"; (c) "Defendant Eul" shall be "E"; (d) "Defendant Eul" shall be read as "G"; and (e) "Defendant H" shall be read as "H"; and (e) it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition as follows.

2.The following shall be added between the sixth and third parties of the judgment of the first instance:

The Defendants asserts that the Plaintiff’s possession constitutes the possession of a third party.

According to the results of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to the Youngsan Agricultural Cooperative, M is recognized to have not received land compensation through the Youngsan Agricultural Bank's financial transaction account in 1993.

However, the order to submit the above financial transaction information was conducted based on the witness S of the first instance trial. Since the time when the above compensation was paid was about 20 years prior to the date of S's testimony, S can be somewhat incorrect of memory about the time of payment of compensation and the bank that received M's compensation. On the other hand, S has consistently and specifically stated that M was paid to the Plaintiff and that M was paid to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, S appears to have no interest in the Plaintiff at the risk of perjury and there is no reason to give favorable testimony for the Plaintiff, considering the fact that M did not receive compensation solely based on the result of the order to submit the above financial transaction information, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that M did not receive compensation, and that the Plaintiff's possession is converted into another possession, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Rather, above.