토지인도
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a dismissal or an additional determination as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On February 10, 2004, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was used or added, deleted “Plaintiff B shall purchase the above land from O or P and complete the registration of ownership transfer in its name on February 10, 2004.” The plaintiff purchased the above land from O or P and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on February 10, 2004 (in the case of Plaintiff A, the correction of the indication of the registered titleholder was made on February 12, 2004 due to the error in application).”
On October 202, 2002, AB consented to the construction of a stone processing business site of light steel framed on E land after purchasing E land. On November 29, 2002, AB consented to the use of the road as an interested party with respect to the building report of AB on November 29, 2002, the land category of E was changed from “B” to “site for factory.” At around 2004, the current status of each land of this case was changed to the following building status map (the next page, Eul evidence 3.) (the next page, Eul evidence 3.). The Plaintiff’s “this case’s land” of No. 12, “this case’s land” of the first instance judgment, and the Plaintiff’s “this case’s land” of the first instance judgment, “No. 1 through No. 5, 7, 5, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, and 5, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
The “instant land” in the first instance judgment Nos. 8, 12, and 15, respectively.