The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Litigation costs incurred by the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the court below's decision, the court below, based on the following evidence, found that Non-party 1 was the injured party of the Seogjin River area and obtained the designation of a planned relocation site for approximately 2 information on the land located in the Donan-gun in the Donan-gun, Chungcheongnam-do before completion of reclamation from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on April 10, 1965, the non-party 1 transferred the whole rights to move to the non-party 2 to the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 transferred the above land to the non-party 3 on January 5, 1975 and cultivated the above land from 1977 and the above non-party 1 occupied the above land from the non-party 4 on December 10, 1976. Since the temporary designation of the above land cultivated after the completion of reclamation from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on December 10, 197, the defendant cannot be deemed to have obtained the right to occupy the above land from the non-party.

However, according to the records, since it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s temporary cultivation right of the instant land purchased from Nonparty 1 is merely an obligatory right, and it has no detailed effect on it (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1228, Oct. 14, 1980). Thus, even if the Plaintiff purchased the right to temporary cultivation of the instant land from the Nonparty, the Plaintiff cannot immediately request the Defendant, a third party, to transfer the instant land directly.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held as above is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle or lack of reason, and this is affected by the judgment, and the defendant's appeal is with merit in this regard.

2. The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant believed that the non-party 4, who held the letter of designation of the prospective relocation area for the land of this case, was transferred the above right to move in order from the non-party 1, the original right holder, and that the non-party 4 was transferred the above non-party 4 by paying 990,000 won, and that the non-party 1 was properly transferred by transferring the above non-party 1's right and possessed the land of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had the intention or negligence on the illegal possession when occupying the above land. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground that there was no error in the law as to the non-party 4's theory, even

3. On the other hand, without making a decision on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and therefore, the part against the defendant is reversed and remanded. The plaintiff's appeal is without merit. Therefore, the costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)