beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.05.20 2014가단25749

부동산소유권이전등기절차이행

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-1, 2-2, and 10:

The land of this case, which was originally owned by the Plaintiff’s father-do governor, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 3, 1962 under the Defendant’s name on July 9, 1981. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 2, 1963 under the Defendant’s name on March 2, 1963.

B. On the ground of the instant land, there was a building of the church that was the first place, but the Plaintiff resided therein from October 31, 1975 to remodel the said church building into a house, and resided therein. On November 27, 2003, the Plaintiff newly constructed a lux roof 107.22 square meters in Incheon Metropolitan City F, Incheon Metropolitan City, which was adjacent to the instant land, and resided in the said house from around that time.

C. The church building on the ground of the instant land was destroyed, and the instant land is currently being used as dry field.

2. The plaintiff asserted from October 31, 1975, the plaintiff occupied the land of this case in peace and openly with the intention to own the land of this case while living in the church building located on the land of this case. After moving into neighboring housing, the plaintiff occupied and used the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on October 31, 1995 after the lapse of 20 years from the above occupancy commencement date. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the completion of the above prescriptive acquisition as to the land of this case.

3. Determination

A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his/her own intention. Thus, the possessor bears the burden of proving that the possessor is an owner of another's possession without the intention of possession, and the possessor himself/herself is an owner of another's possession such as sale.