1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together with the facts of recognition;

A. On November 5, 1998, H, who is an owner of 672 square meters and 660 square meters in the G G, which is an owner of 558 square meters in the G, which is the owner of the G, which is a 672 square meters in the G, which is located in the G, in the G, for use as a passage, he/she purchased 3/58 square meters in the above E, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership from J, which is 2,194 square meters in the above K, 33/2,194 square meters in the preceding 2,194 square meters in the G, and H and I have used 45,39,60,61,62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 67, 75, 76, 777, 78, 16, 38, 138, 130, 194

B. On August 9, 200, Plaintiff A acquired the ownership of 1,706 square meters and 450 square meters of the above L prior to the above L, and Plaintiff B, the mother of Plaintiff A, acquired the ownership of 1,458 square meters and 1,084 square meters prior to the above P, and 684 square meters prior to the above P on the same day. (2) With respect to the land of 31 square meters of the above 672 square meters from H around August 200, when the time of acquisition of ownership of each of the above land, the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of 1,458 square meters and 33 square meters of the above 660 square meters of the above GJ, and the consent to land use of 2,194 square meters of the above 2,194 square meters, and the consent to land use of 30 square meters of the above 2,558 square meters from I, and the consent and payment was made to H in consideration of each land use.

C. 1) Division and land category change, etc. of the Plaintiff’s land prior to the division owned by the Plaintiff 1,706 square meters prior to the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the above N. 1,458 square meters prior to the said P. 684 square meters prior to the said P. were divided and land category change on four occasions as follows (the land indicated in sound management is the land whose final division and land category change was made; the land indicated in sound management is the land indicated as the Plaintiff’s land and the above M. M. land owned by the Plaintiff 2 is collectively referred to as “land owned by the Plaintiff.”

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the prohibition of land category on December 27, 2003 on December 29, 2003, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.