All appeals against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the principal office.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is as follows, is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following acts: (a) No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 13 through No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, (c)

In light of the above-mentioned legal principle, it is reasonable to view that the presumption of autonomous possession of each of the lands of this case is broken, in light of the following facts recognized by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① On December 12, 1961, the land of this case was reclaimed by the residents, who had been established by the self-support settlement settlement residents, with their own resources, to land allocated to them from the State.

The defendant sold the land developed and used by the relevant self-support settlement residents through the process of the investigation of actual conditions in 1989 and 190, the conclusion of loan agreements, appraisal, etc.

② On December 29, 1989, the Plaintiff entered into a market-owned property sales contract with the Defendant on December 29, 1989 with respect to the area of 182 square meters, V, 925 square meters, 2207 square meters, X 342 square meters, Y, 1005 square meters, 514 square meters prior to Z, and 1240 square meters prior to AA, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership.

③ As a result of the fact-finding survey conducted by the Defendant on June 191, 191, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant land without permission.

Accordingly, the defendant imposed the substitute reward to the plaintiff, and thereafter, the plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the defendant on the land and paid the loan fee.

④ On October 200, the Plaintiff was imposed a substitute reward on the ground that the Defendant occupied the 1,058 square meters of the previous 1,058 square meters of the previous n in Sinsi-si and 1 other than the Defendant.

At the time, when the plaintiff submitted his opinion on the advance notification of variable prize to the defendant, the plaintiff occupied the land by transplanting standing timber on the ground located on the road due to the extension of access road to the village around June 1999, and S land is planting its fruit trees in 199.