beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is that it is identical to the judgment of the first instance court, except for the following changes, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
[Modification Part] From 7th of the first instance judgment to 13th of the same page, while the court should make a final decision by the litigation data, regardless of the party’s assertion as to the starting point of acquisition, unless there is any change in the owner’s land during the occupancy period claimed by the party.
Comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 6 (including a land number; hereinafter the same shall apply), evidence Nos. 8 and the images and records of the evidence Nos. 1,316, and the verification results and the purport of the entire pleadings by the court of first instance, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of 1/2 shares in the land owned by the Plaintiff on August 31, 1983 for the land of 1,316m2, and 767m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) directly adjacent to the land of this case, which is the land prior to the annexation, and the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the said part of the land of this case on March 23, 1985, and the road of this case was constructed in a non-packaged road, which is similar to the land of this case, and the Plaintiff had completed the cement construction work on the land of this case for which the Plaintiff entered the land owned by the Plaintiff at the time, and completed the cement construction work on the land of this case by the present date.
According to the above facts, it is recognized that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case around September 198, after completion of the cement Packing construction on the land of this case, but the plaintiff concluded the part of the land of this case among the land of this case around March 23, 1985.