[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gong1993Ha, 1695, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

3. The decision of the court below is corrected as follows.

As to the portion (B) in the ship (a) connecting 23.7m2 in sequence to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's Epik-si's

A. Determination on the main defense of this case

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below concerning this part is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure

B. Judgment on the merits

(1) The basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties or acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-2, 3-1, Gap evidence 4-5, Gap evidence 6-1 through 6-7, Gap evidence 7-1-7, Gap evidence 8-1 through 11, Gap evidence 12-1-4, Eul evidence 12-1 through 12-4, the testimony of Lee Jae-in of the original court, the result of the party members' verification, and the fact-finding with the branch office of the Gangwon-do branch office of the Chuncheon market and the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation of the original court.

(A) The site stated in Paragraph (3) of this Article (hereinafter referred to as the site in this case) was part of 1 to 76 1 to 3,653m2 (hereinafter referred to as the previous site in this case) prior to the subdivision of the land readjustment project. The previous site in this case was completed on January 14, 1957, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed on December 14, 1967. However, on December 14, 1967, Chuncheon was designated as the 6-land rearrangement zone in 196, and the previous land was implemented on December 30, 1968 with the approval of the replotting plan on December 30, 1968, and the previous land was designated as the 197-land substitution plan in this case with the previous land substitution plan of 1 to 94-1, 346m2 and 97m24m of the land in this case before the subdivision. < Amended by Act No. 9774, Jan. 10, 1969>

(B) around 1955, the non-party 1 was built of one building in the specific part of the previous site of this case 69.3m2, which was located on the ground of 69.3m2, and the non-party 2 occupied the building in three separate locations. On December 3, 1955, the non-party 23.6m2 of the above building was purchased from the above Gaodong-dong 23.65m2 of the above Gao-dong 1, 23.65m2 of the above Gao-dong 1, 23.65m2 of the other Gao-dong 1, 23.6m2 of the above Gao-dong 1, 1962. The part of the previous site of this case which was purchased from the above Gao-dong 1,1971, which was then purchased on May 10, 1962, which was then purchased from the above Gao-dong 1,298m2, respectively.

(2) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

According to the above facts, since the land of this case, which is part of the above 94-1 site prior to the partition of the previous site and the substitute lot of the previous site of this case, cannot be deemed as the same land, the plaintiffs continued to possess the above part of the previous site of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs occupied the above part of (a), (b), and (c) among the previous site of this case. However, on January 10, 1969, the plaintiffs occupied the specific part of the previous site of this case, which is the newly substituted land, from the time when the reserved land for replotting was designated as of January 10, 1969, since the plaintiff Lee-won succeeded to the possession of the above land of this case on January 10, 1989, which was about 20 years thereafter, the above part (a), (b), and (c) of the previous site of this case, and the part (c) acquired by prescription each of the above part (c).

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

First, the defendant appears to have been notified of the above replotting disposition before the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and it is apparent that the land substitution stipulated in the replotting plan is deemed to exist on the previous land from the day following the day when the land substitution disposition is announced to the day when the land substitution disposition is publicly announced, so the possession of the land substitution plan is deemed to be converted into the possession of the previous land from the day following the day when the land substitution disposition is announced to the day when the land substitution disposition is publicly announced. Thus, the possession of the land substitution plan cannot be deemed to have continued until January 10, 1989 when the possession of the land substitution land was designated from January 10, 1969 when the land substitution disposition was announced to the day when the land substitution disposition was publicly announced. Thus, the purport of the above provision is that the legal relationship on the previous land exists on the day after the date of the public announcement of the land substitution disposition, and it is apparent that the possession is not deemed to exist on

In addition, the defendant asserted that the designation of the previous land substitution plan was made on December 14, 1987, after the designation of the previous land substitution plan was changed on December 14, 1987. As such, the above change of the replotting plan was made on the day when the change was approved. However, as seen earlier, the previous land substitution plan was merely changed from the previous land of this case to the above 76-2 site as the previous land substitution plan was divided due to the partition of the previous land due to the partition of land, and the previous land substitution plan was merely changed from January 10, 1969 to the above 76-2 site. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

The reasoning of the judgment that a party member should explain on this part is that the part of the judgment of the court below is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, except that the part of "the prescription acquired" under the 6th line below below of the judgment of the court below is "the acquisition of prescription". Thus, it is citing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to the land of the above (A) and (b), the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the land of the above (c) portion on January 10, 1989 with respect to the land of the plaintiff Lee Yong-soo. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the main claim of this case is justified, and all of them are dismissed, and the defendant's claim for counterclaim is without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is just in this conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the cost of lawsuit. However, the judgment of the court below is obvious that the real estate specified in paragraph (1) of this paragraph is not attached by specifying it as an attached drawing, and therefore, it is so obvious that the judgment below did not attach it as to the cost of lawsuit. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Kim Jung-Jon (Presiding Judge) Sung-won