소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation concerning each of the above parts of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
The term "Defendant B" is changed to "Defendant B".
At the bottom of Part 4, "At the testimony of the witness Q" in Part 1 shall be read as "at each testimony of the witness of the first instance court Q and the witness of the first instance court S.".
In Part 5, "The testimony of Witness Q" in Part 4 shall be considered as "the testimony of the witness Q of the first instance trial".
Part 5, "In fact alone," in Part 7, is deemed to be "per the fact of recognition" and "per the testimony of the witness of the party in the trial and the witness of the party in question".
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land is land cultivated by the Defendant’s mother (hereinafter “Defendant’s cultivated land”).
) The land and other land (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-Cultivating land”)
(2) Even after the land rearrangement was made on December 26, 1974, the Defendant’s mother for the land cultivated by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s clan members such as the netO for the land cultivated by the Plaintiff were the farmland shed.
As above, the land of this case was in the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship where the Plaintiff and the Defendant own only the specific parts.
3) On December 3, 1976, the Plaintiff purchased the instant dispute from the Defendant’s mother representing the Defendant’s mother, and had the netO establish a farming house from the entire land, including the Defendant’s farming land. After the death of the MO (the death of September 9, 2008), the Plaintiff left a farming house. (4) From January 1, 1990 to January 1, 2010 (the title holder of the instant dispute is the same as the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff occupied the said land indirectly and indirectly with the intention of possession for 20 years as owned by the Plaintiff.
5..