1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court should explain this case in this case are "2. Defendant's assertion and judgment" in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In addition, "the last part of paragraph 2" is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant occupied the land of this case with the intention to own it for 20 years only with the statement of document No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the name of the owner is entered in the old land cadastre arbitrarily restored for administrative convenience without any legal basis before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act amended by Act No. 2801 on December 31, 1975, the matters concerning the owner cannot be recognized as the presumption of right. Therefore, even if the name of the owner is entered in the old land cadastre which was arbitrarily restored for administrative convenience without any legal basis, the matters concerning the owner can not be recognized as the presumption of right.

or C is insufficient to recognize that the land listed in Section 2 of the Attached List among the instant land was disposed of to a third party, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

"Except for addition, it is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and it is also accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.