Of the part of the lower judgment’s claim for confirmation of ownership, the part on 500 square meters is reversed, and this part of the case is reversed.

1. Determination ex officio on the form of the claim or consolidation and the subject of adjudication by this Court

A. The conjunctive claim must be in a non-conformity with the primary claim. Thus, a claim that reduces the primary claim in quantity or quality and reduces part of the primary claim in quantity and quality with respect to the same subject matter as the primary claim cannot be said to be a preliminary claim in a lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1120 delivered on May 28, 1991; 98Da61463 delivered on April 23, 199, etc.). B.

The judgment below

The grounds and records of the instant lawsuit are as follows.

(1) On the fifth day for pleading of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff stated the purport of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim to the effect that the Plaintiff, as the fifth day for pleading of the lower judgment, “in fact, requests to confirm ownership of the land indicated in the attached appraisal map of the case (hereinafter “the appraisal map of the lower judgment”), and “the request for confirmation of ownership of the land of the said portion,” and “the request for removal of the fence located in the above part of the land,” and “the request for confirmation of ownership against 500 square meters from among the land located in the cadastral map of the land of the said part,” and ⑤ the request for consent

(2) The lower court dismissed all of the primary claims on the premise that the aforementioned claims were primary claims, and (4) above, and (5) above, the lower court rejected all of the conjunctive claims, and dismissed all of the conjunctive claims. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the aforementioned claims (4) and (5) by appeal.

(3) However, the claim is the cause of the claim that the respective lands listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the attached list of the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant land No. 2” and “the instant third land”) are owned by the Plaintiff, and that the instant appraisal is located in the part of the 3.c. and 4.