beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Plaintiff
All of the applicants for taking over a lawsuit are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed.
Reasons
1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of the supplemental appellate brief filed before and after the deadline).
As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal, Article 32(1)2 of the Court Organization Act does not have exclusive jurisdiction over “the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel of the district court”, and the appeal on the ground of violating the right to object cannot be filed after the appellate court, unless it is an exclusive jurisdiction (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu257, 258, Nov. 24, 1987). Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal cannot be accepted. 2) The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground of its stated reasoning as to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the possession of the Defendantbucheon-do, on the grounds of its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the relevant legal principles as stated in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.
3) As to the assertion regarding calculation of unjust enrichment against Defendant Republic of Korea, the lower court calculated the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned to the Plaintiff on the basis of forests and fields in use at the time when Defendant Republic of Korea formed the slope of this case and opened possession on the legal surface. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, etc., and did not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment. 4) On the ground stated in its reasoning, the lower court cited Defendant Republic of Korea’s
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the relevant legal principles as stated in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.
B. The lower court determined as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal.