소유권이전등기
1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) at the trial are all dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “14.5.31” in Part 2, 13 of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is “5.5.31,” and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment, except for the following additional determination as to the counterclaim claim filed by the Defendants in the trial. Therefore, it is determined to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the defendants' counterclaim claim
A. The Defendants’ priority H’s assertion was duly completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate Ownership, which was in force on May 11, 1995 (No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992). Kimpo-si was the competent authority of the registry of the instant land, and Kimpo-si was in the position of supervising the legal procedures.
However, the plaintiff's assertion of the prescription for the acquisition of possession after the lapse of 20 years from the above date of registration is against the principle of prohibition of speech, and it recognizes the responsibility of Kimpo-si.
Therefore, pursuant to the State Compensation Act, the Plaintiff shall compensate for the property tax of KRW 5.5 million paid by H and the Defendants, KRW 4.190,000 inheritance tax, KRW 7.550,000 acquisition tax, and KRW 18.22,00 for the last ten years.
B. We examine the judgment, and the assertion of the prescription period for the acquisition of the land for which the registration of ownership transfer has been completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer cannot be deemed as a tort. The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants committed a tort against the Defendants. The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified, and all of the counter-claim claims filed by the defendants in the trial are dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance on the principal lawsuit is just in conclusion, and it is so decided by the defendants.