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 reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the modification of Article 3(3) (No. 4, No. 11, and No. 17) of the judgment by the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept

2. The modified part;

A. As to the assertion that a person has a title to possession, the Defendant of statutory superficies under the customary law (1) is the Defendant of the legal superficies: C. C. 407m2, D. 1,808m2, E. 46,810m2 (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

I and J, the owner of which was K (hereinafter referred to as “instant inspection”)

Since L acquired legal superficies under the customary law on each of the instant land for the possession of the instant temple, the Defendant asserts to the effect that L succeeded to the legal superficies under the customary law with the instant temple. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that I and J newly built the instant temple and donated it to L, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the overall arguments in the evidence No. 1-2, No. 2, No. 2, No. 2, No. 3, No. 3, and No. 18, I and J completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 24, 1969 with respect to each of the instant real estate on the ground of sale on December 19, 1969, since the instant temple continued to purchase them on the ground that it acquired them on December 19, 1940, the Defendant asserted to the effect that each of the instant land was occupied by the Defendant’s intention to occupy the superficies and each of the instant temple, which is one of the instant temple’s possession after the instant temple.

However, regarding the land of another person.