The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is only a fact that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he would not work for the excavated driver at the time of the instant case.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that has considerable reasonableness to be allowed by social norms, since the Defendant continued to file a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the victim to recover ownership of the instant land and trees at the time of instant case.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of this case’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “the defendant was unable to proceed with the operation because he was seated above the locker,” ② on July 28, 2013, the victim reported it to the police officer who was obstructed by the defendant’s operation, and the contents of the report also correspond to the victim’s above statement. ③ The defendant, even though denying the fact that he was seated above the locker at the investigative agency, did not allow the defendant to stop the operation of the locker (Evidence No. 55 pages of the evidence record) while denying the fact that he was standing above the locker, or prepared a written statement that he retired from the article before the locker (Evidence No. 20 pages of the evidence record) that he did not admit the facts by the defendant and the defense counsel.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the victim, etc. seeking cancellation of ownership transfer while disputing the ownership of the instant land, trees, etc., and lost at the first instance court.