소유권이전등기
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The defendant shall make the Gwangju District Court with respect to Category C 205m2, Jeonnam-gun D.
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. On October 2, 1984, the Plaintiff’s assertion E purchased from G the F&393m2 (hereinafter “F land”) from the Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and purchased the part of the land partitioned from G to H large 205m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) as of the present D-based 205m2 (hereinafter “instant land before subdivision”).
The deceased E, when occupying the instant land around October 2, 1984, occupied the instant land in peace and openly with the intent of ownership for at least 20 years until his/her death on May 24, 2016, and thus, occupied the instant land, thereby becoming entitled to claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescription for the acquisition of possession of the instant land against C, and C agreed to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on or before April 3, 2012. The Plaintiff received the inheritance of the right to the instant land following the agreement on the division of inherited property.
On the other hand, C completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land to the Defendant, who was aware of on October 16, 2013 on the ground of donation, but this was conducted for the purpose of evading the obligation to transfer ownership to the network E, and the Defendant actively participated in such tort. As such, registration in the name of the Defendant on the instant land is null and void as a registration contrary to social order.
The plaintiff shall exercise C's right to claim the registration of ownership transfer against C as preserved right, and shall exercise C's right to claim the registration of ownership transfer cancellation on behalf of C.
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Network E did not occupy the instant land. 2) The network E did not purchase the instant land from I, and the possession of the network E constitutes a malicious possession, which is a malicious possession.
That is.