beta
Text
1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiffs are not less than 15249 square meters of forest land in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) Since it is difficult to view that Defendant F occupied the forest of this case since the forest of this case was managed to the extent of collecting fire fighters in the forest of this case. ② Defendant E lost possession of the forest of this case regardless of the Vari-gun in the 1983 forest of this case, and ③ even if the Defendants occupied the forest of this case, the forest of this case was merely using the forest of this case.
2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the court's explanation of "S" in Part 4 of Part 2 of Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "K" and "S transfer" in Part 2 of Part 3 of the same Table as "transfer of K shares" is the same as that of Paragraph 1.
3. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the “S” of the first instance judgment from the 6th day below to the “K” is dismissed; and (b) the 7th day to the “A. B. Determination on the Defendants and Defendant K’s defense” is the same as the part of the “3. Judgment on the Claims against the Defendants and Defendant K” in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Use]
B. On July 10, 1964, T, a summary of the defense of the Defendants and Defendant K’s defense, 1) purchased the forest land of this case from the person under the circumstance and continuously occupied and managed it, and died on July 24, 1984. Since the Defendants continued possession and management of the forest land of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership of this case constitutes a valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. 2) A’s proof No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity thereof, and T, only the evidence submitted in this case, cannot be used as evidence.