소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange are all dismissed.
2. Appeal;
1. The reasoning of this court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts inserted or changed in addition to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The grounds for the judgment of the first instance court are as follows.
In addition to the following articles, the following articles shall be inserted, and in addition to paragraph 1 / [based basis for recognition], the phrase “A’s Nos. 30, 31, 32, 40” shall be added as documentary evidence.
The land Nos. 3 and 4 was expropriated in accordance with the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, and ownership was transferred to X corporation, and KRW 1,482,103,50 of the compensation for expropriation was deposited in accordance with the decision to prohibit the provisional payment of compensation for expropriation. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21655, Jul. 10, 2019>
(Depositee: the plaintiff or the defendant). B
The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is 2-A.
subsection (1) shall be filled by the following:
1) In fact, each of the instant lands was actually purchased with the funds created by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s son, G, and was left in the name of the deceased. Since D was dead after the deceased’s death, the Plaintiff entered into the instant donation contract with D on February 25, 1994 to receive the return of each of the instant lands. Moreover, since from February 25, 1994, the Plaintiff occupied the land first and fourthly with the intention to own the land, the prescriptive prescription for the land first and fourth was completed around February 25, 2014 after the lapse of 20 years thereafter. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to donation or the completion of prescriptive prescription with respect to the land second and second, and transfer the Plaintiff’s right to claim payment of deposit money for the expropriation of the land third and fourth to the Republic of Korea and notify the Plaintiff of the transfer of the ownership.
C. Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance
B. The title of Paragraph 1 (b) is “reffording against the assertion of donation” and No. 2
B. The title of Paragraph 2 is “effort against the assertion for the completion of prescription”, and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is set forth in Paragraph 3.