토지인도 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 256 of the Civil Code shall be dismissed as "Article 265 of the Civil Code" under Article 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and Article 256 of the Civil Code shall be cited as "Article 265 of the Civil Code"; and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be stated, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's new argument in the trial as follows. Thus, it
2. The addition;
A. Regarding the assertion that there is sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs and E are in the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship between the Plaintiffs and E, and that the instant lease agreement entered into between the Defendant and E with respect to the possession of the instant land owned by E was lawful, but it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Defendant was an agreement between the Plaintiffs and E with the intent to exclusively vest the said specific portion in co-owners as above.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. As to the assertion that the Plaintiffs consented to the exclusive use by E of the portions of “bb, c, div.”, the Defendant asserts that, in light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff’s mine development was exclusively used for 20 years, “B, c, and div.” part of “B, c,” and “B, c, and div.” part of “B, c, and div.”; and (b) the Plaintiff’s mine development was paid royalties to E while using “b, c, and div.” part of “B, c, and div.,” the Plaintiffs consented to the exclusive use by E, and further, that the Defendant agreed to the instant lease agreement concluded with
According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6, the plaintiff.