통행금지등
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the case being cited or added as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. From No. 2, No. 17 to No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.
"Around that time, the applicant filed an application, and the head of the voice Gun removed the Gu house and newly constructed a multi-household house."
B. On the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “this court” in the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to read “the first instance court”.
C. From Nos. 4 to 5 of the first instance judgment, “B” was added as follows.
② On December 28, 1996, land E was divided into “L land” and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on land E on June 3, 2005. F, the former owner, needs to connect the brick factory operated on L land to the outside, so that residents of the village can use the part of land divided into E as a road in fact, so that residents of the village has increased the utility value of L land, and residents of the village pack into concrete packaging as part of the Saemaul project around 1980, and E appears to be buried as a water supply pipe, sewage pipe, and excellent pipes, respectively.”
D. Subsequent to the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.
Now, the plaintiff asserts that F, the former owner of E land, is merely a trustee and that F, as part of the Saemaul Project around 1980, donated as a road to the village, is invalid as an act of disposal by an unentitled person. However, the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, which denies the validity of the title trust agreement on real estate, was enacted on March 30, 1995.