beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.08.12 2014나12595

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 1964, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the deceased J on the instant land.

B. The deceased died on March 2, 2013, and the heirs, including the Plaintiff, who were children of the deceased I, concluded an inherited property division agreement with the content that the Plaintiff inherited the right to the instant land solely on August 5, 2013.

C. The deceased J died on April 18, 197, and the deceased on July 14, 1989, the deceased on July 14, 1989, and the Defendants, their children, jointly inherited the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion I, around February 1948, occupied the instant land from G and occupied it in peace and public performance for twenty (20) years since it purchased and occupied it from G, and accordingly, the acquisition by prescription was completed on the instant land around February 1968.

Therefore, the Defendants, the owner of the instant land, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on February 1968, to the Plaintiff, the deceased I’s heir, for the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

B. Since the deceased J purchased the instant land from the deceased I and completed registration of preservation of ownership on December 28, 1964, the deceased J and the deceased continuously occupied the instant land. After the deceased of the deceased J and the deceased, the Defendants occupied the instant land, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer premised on the possession of the deceased I is unreasonable.

C. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 8, and by the testimony and the entire purport of the argument of the witness L of the first instance trial, are indicated as the transfer of the ownership of the instant land to the network I on December 27, 1948, and the network M, which is the deceased’s father, was the mother of the network I on October 21, 1948, and the network N, which is the wife of the network M, was alive at the time of death.