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
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The grounds for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and such reasoning is identical to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42
0.25:0.25:00.25:1.5 (E) of the first instance court’s 3th sentence “(0.25:25:0.25:1)” is “0.25:0.25:1.5 (E)” (E) of the first instance court’s 3th sentence, “Plaintiffs, Australia’s heir,” and “D” are added to “a unmarried person at the time of his/her death.”
On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the following is added to the 9th judgment:
“The Defendant: (a) was divided into around 1962 and around 1969 at the time of the pre-division of the J in the case of the pre-division of the land; (b) and (c) around 1,003, around 196 and around 1969; and (c) even when the registration of ownership preservation was completed on July 30, 1981 in its own name for all the other lands divided from the mother land of this case, there is no trace for AC or any of its descendants claiming ownership; and (c) it is deemed that the real names or their descendants already disposed of the land of this case 2, 3, and 3, as the possession of the Defendant with respect to the land of this case was lawful at the time of the commencement of the establishment of the establishment of the ownership preservation, and thus, the presumption of autonomous possession is not reversed.
According to the records of evidence No. 6, AC recognizes the fact that G son, who is the joint situation for the mother land of this case, and that it is not the heir of S, who is the plaintiff's prior owner. Although AC completed the registration of preservation of ownership on or around July 30, 1981 for part of the land after the division of the mother land of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the possession of the land of this case No. 2 and 3 was based on the lawful cause at the time the defendant's commencement of the registration of preservation of ownership on the land of this case 2 and 3. Also, according to the above evidence, AC's son is a legitimate cause.