1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as follows: (b) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the same as that of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

“No. 3-1 and No. 13-1 and No. 13-2 are insufficient to recognize that each of the instant roads has been used as a road by providing the general public for passage from the end of the Joseon Dynasty. In addition, there is no evidence by the Defendant against the indirect facts that the owner of the instant land renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the said land because the deceased or the Plaintiff had gained benefit from the incorporation of each of the instant land into the road site. In addition, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the State ex officio changes the land category of each of the instant land, it is difficult to recognize that the deceased or the Plaintiff renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from each of the instant land solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not raise an objection for a long time or the Plaintiff did not pay the property tax.” The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2. The decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.