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
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The second 13 square meters of forest" shall be deemed as "2,231 square meters of forest" in the second 13th m2, the second m231m2 of the judgment of the court of first instance; the 15th m2 as "1,737m2 of forest" in the same part as "1,737m2 of forest"; the 17th m37m2 of the same side as "the deceased and his children were dead," and the 3th m2th m2 "P, Q" in the third m2 as "P, X, Y, Q"; and the 10th m231m2 of the six m2 in each 6th m2,231m2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the grounds of the judgment of first instance, other than adding "additional judgment" as to the Defendant's assertion emphasized or added to this court.
2. Additional determination
A. Although the Defendant asserts that U would not be deemed to have properly purchased the instant land by paying the purchase price in full from P andO, the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract between U and P, as seen earlier, and the fact that U had a direct seal on the said sales contract and receipt was as seen earlier, and there is no circumstance to deem that U had special dispute regarding the payment under the said sales contract until the said contract was concluded and the instant lawsuit was filed, even if U did not pay the purchase price in full, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to reverse the presumption of autonomous possession by the Plaintiffs, which is the net V and its heir, even if U did not pay the purchase price in full, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without any further review.
B. In addition, the defendant asserts that even if U had effectively purchased the land in this case, possession of the net V does not hold possession of P andO's shares in the inheritance of P andO, it does not hold possession independently even with respect to the inheritance shares of other co-inheritors. However, as seen earlier, the deceasedV did not hold possession independently from U.S.