토지인도
1. The appeal by the defendant and the succeeding intervenor is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are the defendant and the defendant.
1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for the submission or addition of the following paragraphs 2, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. On the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The adjoining land of this case” shall be added to “the 116 square meters away” (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”).
(b) Forms 4, 3, and 4 of the first instance judgment are as follows.
"In the absence of dispute", "In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the court of first instance's request for measurement and appraisal to the appraiser I by the appraiser I by the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings to J by the court of first instance."
C. Part 7 of the first instance court's decision No. 4, "Defendant succeeding intervenors" states that "the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, and the Defendant succeeding intervenors are the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances."
Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court is "B. Judgment on the Defendant's argument".
(e)Paragraph 4, 12, and 16 of the first instance judgment are as follows:
【1) As to the claim for the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the prescriptive acquisition of the above occupied portion was completed around December 1, 1998, since the Defendant started to possess the instant occupied portion as the intention of ownership from December 1, 1978, which completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building.
A person shall be appointed.
(f)as of the fifth decision of the first instance, the following shall be added:
As to the assertion that part of the structure constitutes a party wall, the defendant et al., was not part of the building of this case, but part of the structure located in the occupied part of the building of this case, and was installed as a party wall dividing the land of this case and the neighboring land of this case by an agreement of boundary around January 1, 1982. Thus, the plaintiff is not a part of the building of this case.