1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 2, 3-3, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 4, 11-4:

The E reservoir, an agricultural infrastructure, was created in around 1945 in the area of the instant land and the land of Ulsan-gu D, Ulsan-gu.

B. As to the instant land, on March 27, 1971, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the Defendant’s future, and the said D land was owned by F, the father of the Plaintiff, and it was inherited by the Plaintiff, 197;

3. 19. The registration of ownership transfer was made in the future of G as its wife.

2. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant appeal for the subsequent appeal was unlawful because it had been filed on July 2, 2014 at least two weeks since the date when the judgment of the first instance court became known by means of service by public notice, even though the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice. However, on May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove that the instant appeal for the subsequent appeal was served with the lapse of the filing period. However, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

In addition, on May 23, 2014, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the plaintiff in fraud on the ground that the plaintiff acquired the judgment of the first instance court, and the judgment of the first instance court was served by service by public notice around May 23, 2014.

Therefore, the appeal of this case asserts that the appeal of this case is unlawful because the period of appeal is too excessive.

In full view of the purport of evidence No. 11-2 in the statement No. 11-2 of this case, the defendant may be found to have been sentenced to a court of the first instance even at the time of making a statement concerning a case of accusation on June 12, 2014, and thereafter, the judgment of the first instance court was issued on June 26, 2014 only after being aware that the judgment of the first instance court was sentenced by the Ulsan District Court.