1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads “I” as “J,” and “24.1m2” as “24.1m2” in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads “I” as “B,” and “24.1m2,” as “24m2” in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “24.1m2.”

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant argued that the defendant's set up a farming road in the attached Form 2 "the defendant's set up the farming road in the attached Form 2, and installed a farming material warehouse in the part connected with each point of the attached Table 1 "Land Survey Map" 16, 17, 18, and 16, and occupied each part of the above land by installing a farming material warehouse. The period of the acquisition by prescription has expired, and the above farming road portion should also be recognized as free-of-charged area due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that Eul and the defendant opened and continuously occupied the farming road in the attached Form 2 "the defendant's drawing" and the fact that he had occupied the farming material by installing a farming warehouse in the part connected with each point of the attached Form 16, 17, 18, and 16

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant, as a majority equity right holder of the land of this case, the land of this case, the land of this case, which is a specific part owned by the plaintiff, shall be allowed to be exclusively used by the defendant and profit-making, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit, since it is difficult to view that the defendant can exclusively use and profit from the land of this case, as long as the plaintiff and the defendant have sectionally owned co-ownership relation with the land of this case, and thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3...