부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts used or added in paragraph (2). As such, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As part of the part used to be dried or added, the "O," which is its son, of the third and fifth 17th son of the judgment of the court of first instance, is deleted from "K, not the plaintiff's clan but the defendant's clan," which is the son of the first son of the judgment of the court of first instance. Further, the following circumstances are added to the 7th 3th son of the judgment of the court of first instance. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17213, Mar. 1, 2008>
In full view of all the arguments and arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3-1, 4-2, it is recognized that DE received a certain land from the king's wages, etc., but it includes each of the land of this case on which D E received a spath's spath.
there is no objective evidence to prove that D E acquired each of the instant land around that time.
7) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that each of the instant lands is owned by the Plaintiff as a deceased land of DE, in light of the fact that the seedlings of DE, the south of DE, were discovered from the instant land No. 1.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 52, 53, and 54, the following circumstances, namely, the shape of tombstones, which is acknowledged by K, who discovered a specific grave (two seedlings) not discovered so far from the land No. 1 of this case, and reported the discovery of buried cultural properties to the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration in the name of the Plaintiff, although it is acknowledged that K, which is a clan of the Plaintiff, reported the discovery of buried cultural properties in the name of the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, there is no dispute between the above evidence and the parties, or considering the overall purport of the arguments No. 34 and No. 28.