beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reason why the court of the first instance is admitting “R” of the first instance judgment as “S pages”; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments to “S pages”; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. Party’s assertion 1) The Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s Network N, did not possess each of the instant lands. That is, the land indicated in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “G land”).
Part of the road is being used as a road, and the remaining dry field is cultivated by others, not by the defendant, but by others, and land listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as " Q land").
The Defendant’s side cooperates with the Defendant to use part of G land as a road for the convenience of village people. The remainder of dry field was cultivated by the network N directly from July 201, but has been cultivated through T (U) as village residents from July 201.
In addition, the defendant's direct cultivation of Q Q land, and the above land has been silented and managed because it is difficult to cultivate it due to a natural and flood.
C. We examine the judgment 1 G land.
In full view of the facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the on-site inspection by this court, the net N entered into a sales contract with O on January 6, 1990, and the defendant's occupation of each of the land of this case on or around February 1990. The plaintiff was commenced to occupy each of the land of this case on or around October 23, 2013. The plaintiff did not deal with the possession of each of the land of this case on or around October 23, 2013.