토지사용권자 지위 확인
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 as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following [in addition] is added to the part added after the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Additional Part] In addition, as seen earlier, the person who expressed his/her intent to consent to the land use of this case was the Defendant’s wife acting on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the above H has the authority to approve the land use on behalf of the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.
Furthermore, consent to land use of this case constitutes a land lending contract with no agreement of land rent, and a party to a loan for use without any rent may rescind a contract at any time prior to the delivery of an object pursuant to Articles 612 and 601 of the Civil Act.
Even if the agreement on the land use of this case was valid between the plaintiffs, K, and H representing L, as alleged by the plaintiffs, and the agreement on the land use of this case was established in Gangnam-si M, P, and O dry field, and the above H is also authorized to grant the consent on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant, as seen in the basic facts that the defendant revoked the consent prior to the delivery of the land of this case with the consent to the land use of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit since the consent to the land use of this case was legally rescinded.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiffs' claim is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal against this is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.