beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.05.12 2014나55352

취득시효를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows: (a) the “date of the closing of argument in this case” of the first instance judgment No. 6 is deemed as the “date of the closing of argument in the current trial”; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment in the first instance is the same as that of paragraph (1) of the same Article of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On October 4, 1976, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant site, and also purchased the unregistered buildings on the ground. Considering that the land occupied by the instant site was also included in the instant site, and possessed in peace and openly for at least 20 consecutive years as owner’s intent. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land occupied by the Plaintiff on the ground of completion of the acquisition by prescription.

B. In purchasing or acquiring a site along with a building on the ground to be determined, even if the purchaser believed that part of the adjoining land belongs to the site he/she purchased or acquired as a result of an accurate verification of the boundary line with the adjoining land, and thus the purchaser has occupied it by mistake, as long as he/she actually occupies a part of the adjoining land, the possession of the adjoining land shall also be deemed to be based on the owner’s intent. However, a person who intends to purchase real estate concludes a sales contract after confirming ownership relation and size by the certified copy of the register or cadastral record before concluding the sales contract. Thus, if the area of the site subject to sale exceeds considerably the area on the registry, it is reasonable to deem that the contracting party was aware of such fact unless there are special circumstances, such as the seller’s agreement to transfer the ownership of the excess portion, etc.