소유권이전등기
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 judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(Other, the grounds alleged by the Defendant in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court, and even if all the submitted evidence is examined, it is justifiable to find facts and make a decision with respect to the first instance court which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim. [Attachment] The second instance court’s “Evidence No. 7” in the second instance court’s first instance judgment shall be deemed as “Evidence No. 7 and 9.”
[Supplementary part] The third party of the judgment of the court of first instance added "the above sales contract "a above sales contract" and "the lawsuit of this case" to "the above sales contract of this case" on the ground that "the preservation status is too excellent even after the lapse of 40 years after the preparation, and that the date of the conclusion of the contract and the date of the sale that became the cause of registration in the register of the parties under the sales contract
In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 between the third and 18 of the judgment of the first instance, even though it is recognized that the date of concluding the above sales contract was December 17, 1976 and the date of trading that became the cause of registration was different on December 22, 1976, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the above sales contract was prepared in a false manner or that the authenticity is denied, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The fourth page 14 of the judgment of the first instance is added to “the point of large land” and “the time of entry in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3” between “the land of this case” and “the land of this case.”
In light of the facts stated in the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment and the third sentence, “in fact,” the presumed intention to hold the possessor under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act is sufficient, and the registration is not necessarily required, so it is clearly stated that it is an unclaimed possession.