소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings:
On February 15, 1977 with respect to the land of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of sale in the JJ.
B. On April 2, 1986, the above J died, and at the time, the bereaved family members succeeded to the network J according to the statutory shares of the Defendant B and his children, who were the wife, in relation to the inheritance of the Defendant C (mas and girls), D, E (mas and girls), G, and H. On June 1, 2013, upon the death of the said K, the Defendant F, the husband, succeeded to the deceased K, thereby succeeding to the deceased K, thereby succeeding to or succeeding the network J in succession ratioing to each inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet.
C. L died on July 31, 2006, and there were children including the Plaintiff as bereaved family members, but around January 2015, the agreement on the division of inherited property was concluded between the bereaved family members to solely inherit the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership of the instant land.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment asserted that L, 1956, the Plaintiff, purchased and cultivated the instant land in the 1960s, around the time when L, 1956, and died on July 31, 2006, and thereafter, the Plaintiff, the inheritor, occupied the said land for over 20 years, such as allowing M, who was a senior mother, to cultivate the said land. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who succeeded to J, the registered titleholder of the said land, sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet against the Defendants, who succeeded to J, the registered titleholder of the said land.
Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for not less than 20 years, including the possession by the former occupant, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the images of evidence Nos. 16, 20, and 21 as seen earlier.