소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) on January 10, 1971, D purchased the instant real estate from E; (b) after payment of the purchase price, the acquisition by prescription was completed on January 10, 1991; and (c) on June 8, 201, the Plaintiff and the designated parties who were their inheritors inherited the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the prescription period; (c) the Defendant as E’s heir is obligated to perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the prescription period for possession of the instant real estate by the Plaintiff and the designated parties.
Even in cases where the possessor becomes unable to oppose the third party due to the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of real estate by transfer of ownership in the name of a third party with respect to the real estate, and the possessor becomes unable to oppose the third party due to the acquisition by prescription, the possessor does not lose the right to claim the transfer of ownership due to the acquisition by prescription against the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription period, but merely becomes unable to perform the obligation to transfer ownership to the possessor at the time of the completion of the prescription period. Accordingly, if the ownership is restored to the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription for any reason, the owner may assert the effect of the prescriptive acquisition. However, in cases where the heir completes the registration of transfer of ownership only after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, the heir cannot be deemed as the person in the same position as the previous owner in relation to the possessor, unless there are special circumstances such as the heir’s registration can be deemed as the same as the division of inherited property by agreement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da40688 delivered on February 12, 199). The purport of this case is to return to the Health Center, and to the entire purport of pleadings.