Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

[However, the first instance judgment is justifiable even if the grounds alleged by the Defendant in the appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined] set forth in the first instance judgment No. 18 of the first instance judgment No. 3, “Defendant F,” “Defendant F,” “Defendant F,” “Defendant F,” “Defendant F,” “Defendant F,” in the second instance judgment No. 18 of the first instance judgment. The part of the first instance judgment to be used after being dismissed is as follows.

Rather, according to the fact-finding reply with respect to the Construction of Seosan-si in the name of the deceased, 6,101,880 of the replotting liquidation amount to be additionally borne by the deceased in the course of substitution of the land No. 6 of the above table No. 10,309,840 of the replotting liquidation amount to be paid by the deceased in lieu of the substitute land of the plaintiff B, and 4,207,960 of the remaining received amount to be paid by the defendant of the above 4,207,960 of the remaining amount to be paid by the defendant of the first instance judgment, there is no evidence to support that the defendant of the first instance judgment of the first instance court "The evidence and evidence mentioned above" of the first instance judgment No. 9 of the "No. 2, No. 10,100 through No. 12, No. 14, No. 15, No. 15, and No. 15.

In light of the fact that “donation” was a “donation” in Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance, the portion “from the fact of recognition” shall be added to the following:

According to the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 14, the above V land was subject to the registration of ownership transfer from the previous owner AA on April 18, 1989, and the sale on March 15, 1995 as the grounds for registration. < Amended by Act No. 4948, Mar. 15, 1995>