The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The defendant's ground for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the relevant part of the judgment of first instance are justified even if the evidence adopted by the court of first instance added the evidence additionally submitted.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following dismissal or addition. Thus, this court cites it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added by this court.

The first head of the port shall add to the following:

On March 28, 2006, E Forest E 365,45 square meters was divided into 30,342 square meters of E forest, C Forest and C Forest and 1,336 square meters of G forest and 33,777 square meters on March 28, 2006. The area of E forest and 30,342 square meters was converted into 31,582 square meters on December 1, 2010 and was divided into 30,449 square meters of E forest and H forest and 1,133 square meters on September 14, 2018. The part of the first decision of the court of first instance, “In accordance with the fact recognized as above, i.e., e., 30,49 square meters of forest and H forest and 1,133 square meters,” as follows.

In light of the above legal principles, the land in this case is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff. The results of the fact inquiry conducted by the court of the first instance on the Dong-gun of the court of the first instance alone are insufficient to see the presumption as above, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above presumption. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the owner of the land in this case is the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land in this case, to be the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant has a duty to remove each structure in this case, and to deliver each part (a) above, (b) 101m2, (b) 276m2, and (c) 198m2 among the land in this case owned by the defendant.

(b) by striking subsection (1).

The 6th part of the judgment of the first instance is "ownership" as "ownership".

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is groundless.