1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the main claim and accepted the plaintiff's claim on the main claim, dismissed the part of confirmation of the obligation to conclude the sales contract among the defendant's counterclaim, and dismissed the remainder of the counterclaim.

On the other hand, only the Defendant appealed on the claim of preliminary lawsuit and the claim of unjust enrichment that was dismissed by the first instance court among the counterclaim and the claim of purchase price.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim and the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and for the purchase price among the defendant's counterclaim are subject to the judgment of this court.

The reasoning of this court's judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: 3-20 of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, "J land" is as "J land" and 2.B.

(2) The judgment of the conjunctive claim under Paragraph (5) (No. 4) is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those used after being dried as follows. Accordingly, it is accepted as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The judgment of the land of this case as to the cause of the main claim, which was partitioned into C on August 4, 1982, was incorporated into the instant road construction. The Plaintiff changed the land category of the instant land to a road on October 18, 1982, and occupied the said land.

According to this, at least the Plaintiff appears to have occupied the instant land from October 18, 1982, and such possession is presumed to have been occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of possession. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land to the Plaintiff on October 18, 2002, barring special circumstances.

At the time when the Plaintiff occupied the instant land, the gist of the Defendant’s assertion is to acquire the instant land through consultation or expropriate the instant land even though it is well aware that the instant land was owned by the network B.