beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following contents between the five, twelve and thirteen of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(3) As to the above, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is merely a person entrusted with only 38 ownership of the instant land from J, a non-corporate body consisting of 38 persons, such as G, H, I, etc. that purchased the instant land, or a non-corporate body consisting of its members, and thus cannot exercise the right to exercise the right to the instant land 1. However, it is difficult to conclude that the entries of evidence Nos. 4 through 9, 11, and 18 are merely a title trustee of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the following circumstances, namely, G, H, and I (hereinafter “the first co-owner”).
(3) Around October 6, 1969, K for the 3th 1st 1st malth malth 1st malth malth malth malth malth mal
(2) On November 14, 201, the Plaintiff purchased and completed the registration of combination of ownership transfer on forest land before subdivision. On May 21, 1975, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff completed the registration of combination of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale and purchase, and on the land of this case divided from forest land before subdivision, G on March 6, 1990 (Death on April 19, 198), I (Death on July 16, 1992), H (Death on July 16, 1992) on November 14, 201 (Death on September 15, 1994), the Plaintiff’s right to transfer ownership was completed by additional registration of change of the title holder excluded from the joint purchaser’s death, and the Plaintiff’s right to transfer ownership on the land of this case cannot be accepted, considering the fact that the Plaintiff alone owned the land of this case as the joint purchaser of this case.
In addition, the defendant, the plaintiff of this case, each of which is the franchise.