1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following additional portions, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the additional part of the plaintiff did not reverse the presumption of ownership preservation even in the court of this case.

Specific arguments are as follows.

- The testimony of the witness G of the first instance court is not reliable unless the F has purchased the land before subdivision.

- The witness of the first instance court testified to the effect that G was aware of the ownership relationship of the land located in the O (which is the land before division) and provided a special assistance guarantee.

- If F did not purchase the land before subdivision, and G did not provide a special assistance guarantee even though the Defendant actually acquired the land, the dispute arises between F, G, and the Defendant in the Republic of Korea.

However, there was no dispute in fact.

- The possession by K of a part of the land before its subdivision is not an independent possession.

K은 분할 전 토지의 소유자인 F에게 매년 차임(보리 한 말 정도의 텃도지)을 지급하였다

(K’s factual confirmation or testimony) - L also recognized that the ownership of part of the land before subdivision was not his own.

(L’s factual confirmation) - The Defendant intended to purchase the instant land through N.

(N's Fact-verification) - A sales contract stating that N purchases E-land from L is an unsatisfy document with no signature and seal of the parties.

N purchased land from L with low purchase of E-land housing.

(N) In other words, he purchased E’s land and Q’s land from L, and at the time G drafted a sales contract, it was erroneous that G purchases E’s land and its ground land.