1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following "2." and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried or added;

A. 1-A of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance

paragraphs 1 and 2.

this subsection shall be filled in as follows:

“A. Before Ulsan-gun E, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, 599 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land after division”).

(2) On December 6, 1921, the land category of D was changed to “road,” and the land of this case was changed to “road,” following the conversion of the area and the change of administrative district. (b) On September 23, 1914 (No. 1-2 and No. 6 of the former Evidence No. 1-4), the land register (No. 1-3 and No. 7 of the Act) concerning the land of this case was transferred to the Government on September 23, 1914; and on each copy of the register (No. 1-3 and No. 7 of the evidence No. 1-1 of the Act) concerning the land and the land of this case after the division, the registration of preservation of ownership of each of the land of this case was completed on May 26, 191 (No. 8) and on April 26, 1939.

(b) Parts 3, 13, and 16 of the first instance trial judgment, “Plaintiff K” is deemed to be “Plaintiff C”; part 6, “land prior to division” is deemed to be “land after division”; part 8, 9, and 15 “site” shall be deemed to be “official map”; part 9, “Plaintiff K” shall be deemed to be “Plaintiff C”; and part 9, “Plaintiff C” shall be deemed to be “Plaintiff C”;

C. On the third page of the judgment of the first instance court, “However, the State or a local government has preserved cadastral records, etc. at the time of commencing the occupation and use of the pertinent land without being destroyed, and without any entry supporting the acquisition of ownership by the State or a local government, the possibility of acquiring ownership according to lawful procedures without permission shall not be acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da99143, Nov. 24, 2011).”