The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff company was established in the Republic of Korea by non-party 1, Japan, on January 19, 1926, whose trade name was Abea partnership company, and the non-party 2 and non-party 3, who was Korea on April 6, 1945, transferred the share transfer registration under the name of the above non-party on July 19, 1946, and changed its trade name to the Gannam farm in the name of the above non-party. On the other hand, the judgment below rejected the plaintiff's first claim that the above plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was made on the attached list Nos. 1, 2 and 5 as of August 9, 1945, and on real estate No. 3 and 4, the above list of real estate was purchased from the above non-party 1, the owner of the above Abea partnership company, but it did not register the ownership transfer registration under the above non-party 1's name, and the defendant's first claim that the above real estate belongs to the above plaintiff 1 and the above real estate belong to 3.

According to Article 2 (3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, a profit-making corporation established in the Republic of Korea prior to August 9, 1945 has a duty to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant as the registration that was made by the defendant as the property belonging to the plaintiff company, and the defendant has a duty to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant as the registration that was made by the defendant as the property belonging to the plaintiff company is invalid, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the property belonging to the plaintiff company, and there is no reason to discuss this issue.

However, according to the records of the court below's examination of the records, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4, it is only registered as the owner of the plaintiff company, and it is also found that the above Abeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysyyyyysyyysyyysyysyysysyysysysysysysysyysysysyysyysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysys

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the completion of the acquisition by prescription as to each real estate listed in the defendant's separate sheet No. 10 on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant occupied each of the above real estate for 10 years or 20 years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The judgment below is just and there is no reason to hold that there is an error of law in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the real estate in the annexed list 3 and 4 shall be reversed, and remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal against the remaining part shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)