소유권말소등기
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.
1. Basic facts
A. On May 19, 195, the Defendants completed the registration of preservation of ownership with respect to each of 1/2 shares of 20,972 square meters of old-Gun D forest in Gyeongbuk-do (hereinafter “the instant forest”) under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).
B. E large 185 square meters adjacent to the instant forest land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) are the land of the Plaintiff’s housing site that the Plaintiff is currently using as a residence. With respect to the Plaintiff’s land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of F, the Plaintiff’s attached on September 3, 1980, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 20, 1997 on the ground of the inheritance by agreement division as of September 27, 1992.
C. On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the implementation of each procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground that “The Plaintiff occupied part (A) part (hereinafter “instant dispute land”) of 236 square meters connected in order to each point of indicated in the Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1 among the forest of this case as indicated in the Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1” (hereinafter “instant dispute land”) in the access route and math of the said house, and occupied it with the intent of possession for at least 20 years.”
On November 27, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants on the ground that “The land in this case is not an independent parcel, but a part of the land in this case. There is no sign clearly distinguishable between the land in this case and the remaining parts.”
The above ruling was finalized on August 29, 2014 through the appellate court (No. 2013Na21022) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da42288).
(hereinafter the above final judgment is referred to as "prior judgment"). [The grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).