The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

First, I examine the Reasons for Appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, and 5-1, and 5-2 of this case at the same time. According to the reasoning of the original judgment and the records, the plaintiff asserted that the oil pipelines in this case are attached above the plaintiff's site No. 1,000 square meters, and that the branch of this case is not a confession of the defendant's assertion that the above oil pipelines are located above the so-called site No. 1,00 square meters, even if the branch of this case constitutes State-owned land, the branch of this case is not a confession of the defendant's assertion that the above pipelines are located above the site No. 4-2, 3, 4, and 7, and the above ground for appeal No. 1, and the court below's determination that the above ground for appeal No. 1, 5-1, 1000 square meters of the above ground for appeal No.

Next, we examine the ground of appeal No. 2 by agent.

In light of the records, the defendant's assertion is merely about 100,000 won at the market price of the site of this case under the premise of the abuse of rights. For that purpose, if the defendant company with the facility of several detention is removed from the above pipelines, the business cannot be discontinued. Thus, the plaintiff can install the pipelines without passing through the site of this case, and it is clear that the plaintiff argued that the defendant company did not go through the site of this case but did not go through the site of this case, and that the plaintiff did not go through the site of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's argument itself constitutes abuse of the right of so-called abuse, and the defendant should bear the burden of proving the argument at least, and with the same purport, the court below cannot be justified in finding that there is no proof as to the defendant's assertion of abuse of rights, and therefore, it cannot be argued that the court below failed to exhaust all the burden of proof or did not have sufficient deliberation.

Next, we examine the second ground of appeal by agent Hain.

Even a so-called "a bona fide possessor" in this case is deemed to be a possessor in bad faith from the time the lawsuit is brought when the lawsuit is brought against the so-called "a bona fide possessor" in this case, and the existence or absence of the right to direct possession, or the purpose of the lawsuit is to directly defend or exclude the possessor's possession, and the title to the possession in the lawsuit is not a case where the title to the possession is at issue during the lawsuit. In this case, it is clear that the plaintiff only brought a lawsuit to seek removal by asserting the ownership of the site where the oil pipeline in question is installed, and that the plaintiff does not assert the title to the land as the possessor of the same site as the cause of the claim. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit cannot be deemed to be a lawsuit as to the above-mentioned right, and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lost the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the theory of this issue cannot be

Next, we examine the ground of appeal No. 1 as well as the ground of appeal No. 3 as agent Lee Jong-woo's ground of appeal.

According to the original judgment on the premise that the land in this case is property devolving upon the premise that it is not property devolving upon the original judgment, as the court below duly admitted, the court below held that if the 1,000 square meters of the site in this case where the pipelines were installed was Japanese Timber Industry Co., Ltd. and the company was established in Japan, only the shares belonging to Japan should be treated as property devolving upon the property in accordance with the laws and regulations on the property devolving upon Japan, and it does not constitute property devolving upon the property devolving upon its ownership, and even if the plaintiff purchased the land again from the non-party 2, it is void, and it cannot be transferred to the plaintiff even if the plaintiff purchased the land in this case from the non-party 2, and it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff was not negligent in purchasing the land in this case's name due to the fact that the plaintiff purchased the land in this case from the non-party 2 to the plaintiff on March 26, 1962, and that the plaintiff did not have been at the time of the sale of the land in this case's name.

Finally, this paper examines the fourth ground of appeal by his agent.

Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the names of the parties concerned or their representatives present at the oral argument and those of those present at the hearing of the court below shall be stated in the statement of each case of this case. The legal theory that the names of the parties present at the hearing of the court below or their representatives present at the hearing of the court below shall be clearly stated in light of the fact that the names of the parties present at the hearing of the court or their representatives present at the hearing of the court, or their representatives present at the hearing of the court below shall be stated in the statement of the court below, although the names of the parties concerned or their representatives present at the hearing of the court below are not clearly stated in the above legal effect, it is unnecessary to hold that even if the names of the parties concerned or their representatives present at the hearing of the court below were not clearly stated in the above legal effect, there is no problem in the judgment of the legal effect as

Therefore, we cannot accept the misunderstanding of this point, and we cannot accept it.

Therefore, since the appeal is without merit, it is dismissed under Articles 395 and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 89 and 95 of the same Act.

Judges Kim Kim-gn (Presiding Judge)