소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the court’s explanation is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for partial revision as follows.
(Otherwise, the content alleged by the Plaintiff in this Court is not significantly different from the content alleged in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence presented to the first instance court and this court were examined, the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable). The Defendant’s inquiry in the first instance court is modified to “the network B”.
The 2nd page 12 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to "China".
The following shall be added to 14 pages of the judgment of the first instance.
A person shall be appointed.
D. The deceased died on September 7, 2019 while the trial was pending in the trial, and the deceased’s husband’s heir of Defendant I and Women P (Death, June 26, 2019) who is the deceased’s husband’s heir of Defendant J, Defendant C, Defendant K, Defendant N, Defendant N, and Defendant P (Death, March 31, 2014) taken over the instant lawsuit in the trial as the heir of the deceased.
The written evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the first instance judgment shall be revised to “B” Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, Eul’s each statement or image, Eul’s evidence Nos. 12 and 13, and the result of each inquiry reply to the President of the Gangseo-gu branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the first instance trial,” respectively.
According to the fact-finding reply from September 20, 2019, the part of the first instance judgment 4, 6 of the "fact-finding" was stated as "the fact-finding", and the fact-finding reply from September 20, 2019 on the Director of the Hanyang National Land Information Corporation of the Party, which was the result of the fact-finding inquiry from September 20, 2019, it is reasonable to view that, since the surveyingwon was a boundary restoration survey, and the boundary between D and the land of this case was restored, it was the land owner's attached F or Orun E, who was the owner of D, could have been aware of the fact-finding
"C."