beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement to the claim that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After the division, the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff) was in possession of the portion of the claim C, including the cemetery, which was installed in the part of the claim C, and the two trees, which were the part of the claim (c) of the same part, were planted and managed by the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff). The part of the claim (a) in D, after the division, was occupied by the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff) cultivated and managed the mulberry as a dry field. The part of the claim (b) in D, after the division, was occupied by the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff) cultivated and managed the mulberry as a dry field, and the part of the claim (a) in the same area (b) was occupied by the Plaintiff’s permission the Plaintiff to use it for the graveyard.
3) The zero-si roads between the land E before subdivision and the G before subdivision are merely written only in the forestry map, and there is no scams in the actual site. (B) After subdivision, the Plaintiff asserted that the part of the claim(c) of C and the part(a) of the claim(a) of D in the following subdivision were cultivated as a dry field while artificially planting and managing scam trees and mulberry trees in this part of the forest land. However, examining the images of the evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 14 submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not appear to have cultivated the above assertion by artificially planting and managing the said trees in this part of the forest land. In this regard, the Plaintiff was urged by the on-site inspection, and this court urged the Plaintiff to submit an additional entry to determine the necessity of on-site inspection, and provided sufficient opportunity for several times.
However, the Plaintiff submitted by the closing date of the instant case.