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 court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the following “the part added or dismissed by 2.2.” Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The second to third to fifth of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. The second to third to fifth of the judgment of the first instance is added or dismissed.
C. On December 3, 1982, at the time of the construction of the Defendant’s building, the Defendant installed a fence (hereinafter “instant fence”) in order to connect each point of the items indicated in the separate sheet No. 9, 10, and 16 from around December 3, 1982, and used it as a waste storage yard, etc. by occupying the part of the ship which connects each point of the separate sheet No. 8, 9, 16, 17, and 8 in sequence.
Around December 2004, the lessee of the Defendant building used the part 2.7 square meters in the section 2.7 square meters on board (hereinafter “the part of the instant case”) connected with each of the items in the attachment Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 8 (hereinafter “the part of the instant case”) as the warehouse for the mentmens, bricks, bricks, and bricks, and installed in the section 12, 13, 14, 15, and 12 square meters in sequence connected each of the items in the same drawing No. 12, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 12 (hereinafter “the part of the instant case No. 11,10, 16, 17, 14, 13, 12, and 11 of the drawings. The Defendant used the part of the instant case’s land annexed to the instant building as the annexed land of the instant case.
No. 6 to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance. ......... .................................. is the area of the part in (a) through (c) of the Defendant’s building in this case...... 5.8 square meters in the area of (a) through (a) of this case are only 2.37 percent in the building area of the Defendant’s building in this case (i.e., 5.8 square meters in this case ± 244.46 square meters in ± 100, a small number of less than two places, hereinafter the same shall apply) and is merely 1.18% in the area of the Defendant’s land in this case.
O The fourth and fourth instances of the first instance judgment are as follows.