1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following dismissal portion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

(B) In light of the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the fact finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal) and the second to third of the second to 9 of the second to 13 of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows: (b) around 1968, the land substitution “division” in the land substitution plan and the “name” in the land substitution plan form submitted to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu who is the project implementer of this case, and the “name” in the land substitution plan form submitted to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu around 1968, respectively contain the names of “D and E,” but the “name” on the right upper part of the

From 2th to 17th of the first instance judgment, the land cadastre of this case is indicated as substitute land in M and D as of August 11, 1972, and the registration payment of this case was made on November 4, 1976, and M’s ownership transfer was made to N on the ground of exchange on November 4, 1976.

The judgment of the first instance court Nos. 4 and 1 (2) shall be reversed as follows.

In this case, prior to the implementation of the project, the owner of the land prior to the instant land was E, D, the fact that the owner entered M and D’s name in the land substitution plan in the process of the project in this case, and M and D’s land cadastre after the completion of the project in this case stated that M and D received the land in this case, and the fact that the ownership on the land in this case’s registry transferred to N by M is as seen earlier.

However, after entering M's name in the above land substitution plan, there is no evidence from which M and D are aware of the specific circumstances that M and D recorded as the owner in the land cadastre, and it is argued by the defendant.