beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.24 2017가단28174

불법점유토지명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. In fact, the Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon-based C large 284 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) is unregistered land and its land cadastre is registered as D’s owner and resident registration number as E.

F is a member of G clan (hereinafter “the clan of this case”). He sold the land of this case to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2003, which was its grandchild, and the land was D on the land cadastre due to the special agreement, but the actual owner decided to actively cooperate with the seller when the purchaser of this case owns the clan in the future.

around 1976, the Defendant husband He purchased J 313 square meters and unregistered houses on the ground adjacent to the instant land, and around that time, he installed a fence in accordance with the attached drawing indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 in the order of 62 square meters in part (hereinafter “bbb”) in the ship connected each other, and used trees in depth, math and house access roads, gardening, etc., and the house was preserved and registered around 202 by means of extension and rebuilding, and the house was located outside the instant land. The wall outside the rooftop building (hereinafter “cream section”) connected each other of 4, 5, 6, and 4 square meters in turn, which are part of the said house, is located on the instant land.

After the husband's death, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D, who is the nominal owner on the land cadastre in around 2015, and asserted that the Defendant’s husband purchased and occupied and used the land on the part of B and C, and the intention of ownership ownership for at least 20 years, and received an order of rejection of the complaint on the ground that the identity of D was not identified.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed an application for intervention on the ground that he purchased the land of this case, and the defendant dismissed the defendant's complaint.

The existence of “E” resident registration number is not verified, and the above resident registration number is rather an error number that can not be given.

The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.