소유권이전등기
1. The Defendant: (a) on December 31, 2017, based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period on December 31, 2017, with respect to C river 3,646 square meters in smuggling to the Plaintiff.
1. The assertion and judgment
A. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of witness D's testimony and pleading as to the cause of the claim, Eul, the father of the plaintiff, purchased from F the land indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter "the land of this case") around December 197, and occupied the land of this case from around that time, and he occupied the land of this case with the plaintiff from around 2006 to 2006, and he occupied the land of this case. Eul donated the land of this case to the plaintiff around 2009, Eul donated the land of this case to the plaintiff; the plaintiff occupied the land of this case; the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the land of this case on January 13, 198; and the defendant has owned the land of this case until now.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and E have occupied the instant land for at least 20 years, and the Plaintiff and E are presumed to have occupied the instant land in peace and openly with their intention to own, and the Plaintiff may assert the completion of the prescription period by using the time of voluntary commencement as the starting point of time. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on December 31, 2017 for the instant land to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not grant F the right to dispose of the instant land, and E could easily be seen that the instant land was owned by the Defendant when verifying the land cadastre of the instant land.
In addition, since the land of this case is the temple property, it cannot be disposed of without permission of the competent authority.
E has been aware of, or could have been negligent in, these circumstances, and thus, the possession of E constitutes the possession of a third party with bad faith without permission.
B. The land of this case is a river, the category of which is a river, and the State or a local government shall not exercise its private rights.