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. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around May 1967, D sold to the Defendant’s father of the Defendant for KRW 169,410 of the FY 1,253, the amount of KRW 169,410 prior to the division to KRW 169,410, and D decided to sell approximately 50,000,000,000 won of D’s mother-friendly graveyard portion located on the ground (hereinafter “instant dispute land”). However, the registration was transferred to the Defendant as E, and the registration was completed on May 29, 1967 by the Changwon District Court’s Busan District Court’s registry as the receipt of No. 900 on May 29, 1967.
B. D, as above, only three years have passed since the sale of the land before subdivision, moved to another cemetery on the land in question, and on October 20, 1970, sold the land in question to the Plaintiff. On October 20, 1970, the Plaintiff occupied the land in question and occupied the trees for night trees on the land in question and on the G and H land owned by the Plaintiff in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and Gyeong-gun.
C. Meanwhile, on August 22, 1990, the land of this case was divided from the land before the said subdivision, which was located in the Gyeongnam-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, 95 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant land”).
In addition, the land in the dispute of this case gushes the morality from the land in this case owned by the other defendant as a boundary, and the part of the land in this case is cultivated and harvested by the defendant under the virtue that it is possible to clearly distinguish between the land in this case and the remaining land in this case from the land in this case.
E. On the land in the dispute in the instant case, there remain a lot of boomers in which the fluoral fluor, by which it was known that it was the base of the cemetery and the trees planted around it, and there exist a relatively recent fluoral bluor who had yet to grow up to the extent that it would have been caused by negligence.
F. The location and area of the land in the dispute of this case are 180 square meters in order to connect each point of the attached Table 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22, 23, 24, 24, 7, 6, 5, and 17, among the land in this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, and 1.