1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the part of the first instance judgment except for the addition of “the result of the on-site inspection by this court” to the grounds for recognition of Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On December 5, 1956, the Plaintiff’s father G, as of the time of purchase of H, I, and J land adjacent to the forest of this case (10,024 m2) as indicated in the Plaintiff’s paragraph (a) of Article 1-A of the first instance judgment on December 5, 1956, deemed that the part of the land purchased as above was part of the land purchased. On January 28, 1958, after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land purchased as above, the Plaintiff occupied, occupied, occupied, and donated, and donated, to the Plaintiff on July 31, 1965, the portion of the instant case B, C, and C were also donated to the Plaintiff on the donation of the land of H, I, and J. 2) from January 28, 1958 to the intention to own, perform publicly, and occupied, and the Plaintiff acquired the prescription period from July 28, 1965.

3) Even if it is not so, the Plaintiff commenced the registration of transfer of ownership on July 31, 1965 with respect to the instant B, the portion of the C, which was donated from G, as well as for the peace and public performance of possession on July 31, 1985, for which twenty years have passed thereafter, the period of prescription for acquisition of possession was completed. 4) The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership for sale on the land as of May 3, 1972 with respect to the land as of May 3, 1972, and the portion of C, which was known to be part of the said land. Accordingly, the period of prescription for acquisition of possession was completed on May 3, 1992 after twenty years have elapsed since May 3, 1972.

5. However, despite the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition by possession as above, the plaintiff has the prescription period.