소유권이전등기
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.
The plaintiff purchased the land of this case around 1963 by his father, and the plaintiff, together with his father from around that time until the death of his father, continued to cultivate the land of this case solely from the death of his father until the death of his father, so the period of prescription for possession has expired as of January 1, 1984.
Considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the first instance court’s testimony and on-site inspection of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the witness E, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have continuously occupied the Plaintiff, either jointly or independently with his father from 1963 to the present land, while cultivating crops, such as maize, bean, spath, and qua, from the land of this case.
However, the plaintiff presented the F's factual confirmation (No. 1-1) as evidence that his father purchased the land of this case in around 1963, but it is not in possession of the document, such as the certificate of registration of right to the land of this case or the sales contract. The above assertion and evidence alone are not sufficient to identify the details of the sale and purchase, as well as the seller. ② According to the plaintiff's assertion, the prescription of acquisition by possession was completed on January 1, 1984, the defendant failed to exercise his right to the land of this case against D (Seoul Central District Court 201Ga25325) before the registration of ownership preservation of D's ownership was completed, and in particular, the plaintiff did not take measures to preserve ownership of the land of this case by dividing the land of this case from Gyeonggi-gun-gun G on August 1, 1976 and entering the purport of No. 31-28, May 28, 1979.