1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall consist of a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim.

1. The reasoning for this court's explanation is as follows: each "AC" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "AD"; the fourth [Attachment 1] of the judgment of first instance shall be the third column "division 7, 2004"; the third column "division 7, 2004" shall be read as "the June 17, 2004"; the sixth below as "the June 27, 2004" shall be read as "the June 17, 2004"; and the second paragraph shall be the same as the reasons for the judgment of first instance except for the conclusion which adds the same as that of paragraph 2; therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants asserted in the appellate court that, as the subject matter of sale was specified in the form of land divided into rice and dry field based on the drainage channel when selling the land of this case to AD, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name as to the dispute part of this case, which was not included in the subject matter of sale, is null and void of the cause, and the Plaintiff, who is in the position to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership, is not entitled to seek the delivery of the dispute part of this case against the Defendants.

In light of the facts acknowledged by the first instance judgment cited earlier, AD purchased dry field of 32,409 square meters from Dong C and K around February 5, 1968, and thereafter divided into 32,409 square meters prior to N on March 7, 1976. However, the Defendants have cultivated the rice field in the opposite side of the instant land (O,436 square meters prior to the division of March 7, 1976) on the basis of drainage, at least 10 years prior to 10 years prior to the sale of the instant land. Considering that it is difficult to view that from around 1968 when the said sales contract was concluded, D purchased dry field of 32,409 square meters up to N, which was adjacent to the instant land, it was difficult to view that D had not changed the location of the above drainage, and ② B was still divided into P,36 square meters over the boundary of P,36 square meters prior to the sale of P, 1976.