1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claim filed at the trial.

I. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part of the claim is as follows: (a) 1-1-5, 6, and 9 of the first instance judgment's reasoning is as follows: (b) 1-5, 6, and 9 of the first instance judgment's reasoning is as follows: (c) 1-1 "H"; (d) 7-2 "the same day" is as "I"; (e) 12-2 "Plaintiff A" in the first instance judgment as "Plaintiff A"; and (e) 13-2 "Plaintiff A" in the first instance judgment as "Plaintiff B"; and (e) 6-1 through 4-4 of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, which is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion, are excluded; and (e) 2-20 of the first instance judgment's reasoning is added. Thus, this part of the first instance judgment's reasoning is

【The Defendant asserted to the effect that, during the process of acquiring K’s land before partition through auction, the area was confirmed by the official cadastral record, etc., and that if the area of the part of the instant crime was added, the possession of the O on the part of the instant crime constitutes an exclusive possession as a successful bid for the right of occupation and use. According to each of the above evidence, it can be recognized that the area actually occupied by the O was 2,271m2, and that the area of the instant crime was 2,424m2 (in addition to the part of the instant crime, the area of the instant crime was 70m2 and 83m2,000). However, inasmuch as the area of the instant crime was 107m2 of the area entered in the public record, the above fact alone is insufficient to deem that O was aware of the fact that the area of the instant crime was awarded a successful bid for the Defendant’s land beyond a considerable degree of error in the area of the area that was ordinarily permissible in the process of delivering the said part of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant is divided from O on January 11, 1997 by the plaintiffs.