소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justifiable in light of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance to the court of first instance by viewing the records and images of evidence Nos. 5 and 8
Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: "E" in the second page 14, 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "O"; "The plaintiff couple acquired each of the plaintiff's land from March 29, 2017 to alter the form and quality of the plaintiff's land as the plaintiff couple acquired each of the plaintiff's land of this case from B on March 29, 2017 to the site"; "the plaintiff couple changed the form and quality of each of the plaintiff's land of this case to the site around July 9, 2007"; "the plaintiff was donated the plaintiff's land of this case from B and possession of each of the dispute of this case was succeeded to the plaintiff's land of this case, and eventually the defendant succeeded to B as "the defendant," and the defendant added "2. Additional decision" as to the plaintiff's assertion emphasized or added to this court, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s assertion that ① did not possess each part of the dispute of this case between March 24, 1976 and 20 years; ② possession of the part of each of the dispute of this case between O and F, which was completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the part of the land before subdivision, shall be deemed to be the possession of the owner; ③ even if the part of each dispute of this case was acquired through the completion of the prescription for the acquisition by possession, it shall be deemed to have been divided under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land, Ltd., and at least after the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, upon the Plaintiff’s assertion, lost possession of each of the dispute of this case from June 30, 2007 to June 4, 2017, since the Plaintiff’s husband and wife lost possession of each of the part of this case from around 10 years to June 24, 2017.