1. The part concerning claims in the judgment of the first instance and the part concerning the preliminary counterclaim shall be revoked; and

2...

1. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the Defendant’s counterclaim claim and defense is that the “7.24.24.” of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance is the “8.21.” The 5th sentence is the “43m2,” and the “43m2.43m2” of the 8th sentence is the “43m2,” the 5th sentence is the “43m2,” and the part corresponding to the Defendant’s site at the end of the house heading in the instant case where the instant land is invaded is located, and the 5th sentence is the same as the 2th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the 5th sentence to 16m2, and the 7m2 of the 5th sentence is

[3] As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the presumption of possession with independence was reversed by the Defendant by occupying the above parts of “A” and “B” without permission knowing that the land was owned D. In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the above E-mail and 482 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) in consideration of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, No. 1-2, No. 1-2, and No. 3, and the witness of the first instance trial, and the overall purport of the testimony and pleading of the witness of the first instance trial.

The Defendant, who completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 26, 1984 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982, the partial amendment of Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982, appears to have registered the land of this case in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership, but did not complete the registration. However, the Defendant appears to have failed to take any particular measures for the transfer registration even after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership.