1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

With respect to the area of 979m2 in Nam-gu L prior to the port of port, the attached drawing shall be indicated 5.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance except for the addition or replacement of the four parts among the court's decision of the first instance. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The results of the first instance court's witness S, T's testimony, the results of the appraisal commission for the Korea Land Information Corporation (including the results of supplementary appraisal commission), the results of this court's inquiry for the Korea Land Information Corporation (including the results of supplementary appraisal commission), the results of the fact inquiry for the Korea Land Information Corporation, the results of the first instance court's witness S, T's testimony, the results of the appraisal commission for the chief of the Korea Land Information Corporation (including the results of supplementary appraisal commission) of the first instance court's branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the results of the first instance court's request for the appraisal commission for the chief of the Korea Land Information Corporation's branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation (including the results of supplementary appraisal commission), the National Land Information Institute of the first instance court'

(b)Paragraph 6 of Chapter 9 is difficult to say, the following shall be added:

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the size of the part owned by the defendant was mistakenly registered in the registry of the land of this case.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's above assertion only with the statement No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(c) from 13th to 19th “the foregoing legal doctrine” has been amended as follows.

Meanwhile, in cases where co-owners believe that each part of the whole area of the land before partition is divided into sectional ownership, and have completed the registration of ownership transfer for the portion equivalent to the approximate area of each part of the land occupied by them, even if co-owners on the register are part of each land as co-owners on the register, their possession cannot be deemed as possession by the nature of the source of title (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da7995, Mar. 29, 2007). This is to the extent that some co-owners do not exceed a reasonable extent.