소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court's explanation of this case is to dismiss "the 8. January 1, 1990" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the 1. September 1, 1990"; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion as follows; and (c) thus,
2. The Plaintiffs asserts that the burden of proof of the fact that each part of the instant land 1 and 2 occupied by the Plaintiffs is an administrative property that is not subject to prescriptive acquisition is against the Defendants. The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone asserts that, insofar as it is not clear whether each part of the instant intrusion was already used as a road at the time of Japanese colonial rule or was used as a part of the adjoining land, it should be deemed as a general property subject to prescriptive acquisition.
In order to complete the acquisition by prescription for state property, the state property must be a general property that can continue to be an object of acquisition by prescription, not an administrative property, for the period of acquisition by prescription, and the burden of proof for this point is the person who asserts the acquisition by prescription.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29890 Decided October 9, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19528 Decided December 10, 2009, etc.). In this case, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the land for which the plaintiffs asserted the acquisition of prescription is part of the land of this case, which is the State property not owned by the plaintiffs, is the neighboring land of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case 1 and 2 were general property subject to the prescriptive acquisition during the period of the prescriptive acquisition claimed by the plaintiffs.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 7 and 1 evidence Nos. 7 and 1 evidence, it is just a site “I” which is the mother’s land of this case on May 13, 1913, which is the cadastral source map drawn up by Japanese colonial rule.