The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

costs of lawsuit after an appeal are filed.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on this part is not significantly different from the assertion in the first instance court, except for the amount reduced to KRW 59,292,00 (three times the published land price) equivalent to the market price on May 3, 2004, the part of the instant claim for damages arising from a tort (Article 3, 4, -1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 81 square meters in sequence among the items in the possession of the instant case (Article 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 2, 4, 5, 5, 7, 3). In light of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, the fact finding and

Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the following dismissals or additions, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The phrase “the second preceding case” in the first instance court No. 10 of the judgment of the first instance court is the same as “the first preceding case.”

(c)in addition, the following shall be added to the 12th decision of the first instance.

In addition, "the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment" is included in the text of the judgment, that is, the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of a legal relationship claimed as a subject matter of lawsuit itself, and it does not affect the existence of a legal relationship as a premise stated in the reason of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da26745, 26752 Decided August 19, 2010). According to the aforementioned facts, the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the preceding case only pertains to the existence or absence of the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the statute of limitations for the possession of the instant portion against the Defendant, and each ownership transfer registration that was completed in I and G with respect to the instant portion through the first preceding case, etc. is W.