소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the primary claim is with merit.
(2) In addition to the fact that the ownership of the instant site is transferred to B on the one hand as seen above, as “including the instant site,” this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(C) We affirm the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court even after examining the evidence which the defendant submitted in the trial additionally. 2. Judgment as to the conjunctive claim
A. Since the Defendant constructed a road on February 12, 1993 above, the land equivalent to the Defendant’s share in the instant road, among the Plaintiff’s assertion, has been used as a passage to the instant site for at least 20 years until now. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of the establishment of a servitude on August 30, 2016 for the Defendant’s share in the instant road to the Plaintiff and E.
B. The provision of Article 245 of the Civil Act on the prescriptive acquisition may apply mutatis mutandis only to the right to use another person’s land for the benefit of one’s own land for a given purpose, which continues to exist and expressed,
(Article 294 of the Civil Act). Therefore, a passage area can be recognized only if the owner of the dominant land establishes a road on the dominant estate and continues to use it for the convenience of the dominant estate, and the objective situation where the owner of the dominant estate continues to use it for the benefit of the dominant estate.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17479, Mar. 20, 2015). Therefore, if a road was used as a passage and it is not recognized that it was established as a passage for one’s own land, the right of passage cannot be acquired by prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da74939, 74946, Jan. 28, 2010). The Defendant, who was the owner of the instant building site corresponding to the dominant land, opened the instant road.