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. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff owned each of the above shares in relation to the ownership transfer registration on December 31, 1979, E forest land 29, 363 square meters, F forest land 31, 339 square meters, and 1/2 shares in G forest land 1,976 square meters on May 23, 1996, and until now, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 23, 1996 with respect to each of the above shares in the above forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”).
B. The Defendant, around 1970, installed H in the vicinity of the instant forest and field and occupied and managed the said reservoir (hereinafter “instant reservoir”) and its neighboring road up to the present day.
C. From 2009 to 209, the Defendant: (a) part 23 square meters in the part indicated in the annexed drawing No. 1 among the forests and fields indicated in the foregoing paragraph; (b) part 421 square meters in the annexed drawing No. 1 among the forest and field No. 3; part 1,925 square meters in the annexed drawing No. 1,925 in the annexed drawing No. 1,561 in the G forest; and (c) part 1,561 square meters in the annexed drawing No. 2 among the forest and field No. 1,838 square meters in the annexed drawing No. 2 in the E forest; (b) part 5 square meters in the annexed drawing No. 3 in the annexed drawing No. 2 in the G forest and field; and (c) part 201 square meters in the annexed drawing No. 2 in the annexed drawing No. 2 in each of the instant forest and field No. 3000,000 square meters in each of the instant forest and forest land No. 2530.
From July 1, 2009 to March 31, 2015, the portion of the forest land of this case managed by the defendant as described in the above paragraph (c) is KRW 30,910,40 in the case of forest land B, C, and D, and KRW 87,346,190 in the case of forest land E, F, and G = 74,753,360 won in the case of forest land = 12,592,830 won in the case of forest land of this case as a result of the appraisal of the rental fee, the plaintiff claims the forest land of this case as a road according to the appraisal value.