The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. 사정명의인과 원고의 선대와의 동일성 여부에 관한 주장에 대하여 원심은 그 판시와 같은 사정을 종합하여, 토지조사부에 이 사건 각 토지의 소유자로 기재되어 있는 C이 원고의 아버지인 D의 부(父)이자 원고의 조부(祖父)인 C과 동일인이고, 위 C이 이 사건 각 토지를 사정받았다고 판단하였다.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the recognition of identity of the person in charge of circumstance, or by exceeding the bounds of

2. As to the assertion on the possibility of disposing of each of the lands of this case to a third party, the lower court determined that D, the Plaintiff’s attachment, could not be deemed to have disposed of each of the lands of this case to a third party solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence

3. As to the assertion that each of the instant lands constitutes an accessory facility to the steel farmland, the lower court determined that the ownership cannot be deemed to have been attributed to the Defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.