소유권이전등기
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be the costs of the defendant (appointed party).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the change of the entry as follows or the statement of “2. Additional determination”, thereby citing it as it is in accordance
Following the second instance judgment of the first instance, “F is dead on November 6, 1976,” the second instance judgment of the first instance added “in accordance with Article 1009 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 3051, Dec. 31, 1977).”
The fifth part of the judgment of the first instance is changed to the fact that "the plaintiff stated that he paid a part of the compensation for the land of this case which is F owned by H" to H. The fact that "F and the recipient column is stated as H" in the land ledger.
2. The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserts that, as the period of prescriptive acquisition claimed by the Plaintiff (from December 20, 1958 to December 20, 1978), the acquisition by prescription was suspended due to the death of F, who was the owner of the instant land, on November 6, 1976.
The title of ownership on the registry was changed before the expiration of the prescription period.
As such, since the continued possession of the existing possession cannot be deemed to have been destroyed, this cannot be a ground for suspending the acquisition by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6186, Apr. 25, 1997). The death of the owner on the register does not constitute a ground for suspending the acquisition by prescription.
Therefore, as long as F died before the completion of the prescription period, but the Plaintiff’s possession still continued, the prescription period is not interrupted. The Plaintiff can assert the completion of the prescription period against the Defendant (Appointed Party) who is the heir of F, and the designated parties. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant (Appointed Party) is rejected.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.
The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.