2. Revocation of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant joint construction company.

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation shall be dismissed.

3. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendants 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the above defendants is dismissed.

4. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Gyeonggi-do shall be borne by Defendant Gyeonggi-do.

All costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff

(1) The defendant Gyeonggi-do shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 4421 of the receipt of December 6, 1954 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

(2) As to the real estate listed in the attached Forms 1 and 3, 1393.4/1435.1 shares among the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the same Article, and the real estate listed in paragraph (6) of the same Article, Defendant Samsan Construction Co., Ltd. shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 11859 of the receipt of February 7, 2003.

(3) As to the real estate listed in attached Form 4, Defendant 3 shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on October 10, 2006 under the receipt of No. 9353 on October 10, 2006.

(4) As to the share of 41.7/8610.6 shares among the real estate listed in attached Form 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8 shall implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 21735 on April 13, 1995 by the above-mentioned Government Registry.

Purport of appeal

(1) The part against Defendant Gyeonggi-do among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Gyeonggi-do is dismissed.

(2) It is consistent with paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Article.

The following facts are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 13, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

[1]

On October 1, 1913, KRW 17,49 was considered to have been owned by Nonparty 1, and KRW 2,747 was considered to have been owned by Nonparty 2 prior to the opening of the △△-gun △△-gun △△△△△-gun △△△△-gun △△△-gun △△△△△-dong. (The said “○○○-ri” changed to the “○○○-si, Gyeonggi-gun △△-gun △△-gun” and changed to the “△△-dong, △-si, △△-gun, △△-gun,” and the said land was indicated only by the lot number

○○ Nonparty 1 (name after the opening of the name: Do governor) is Nonparty 3’s head of household, and Nonparty 1, etc. established the Plaintiff, an unlimited partnership aimed at agricultural management, etc. on August 30, 1935, to jointly manage and benefit from Nonparty 3’s miscarriage.

○위 □□□ 토지가 □□□-▽ 전 4,815평 등으로 분할되었고, 위 ◇◇◇ 토지가 ◇◇◇-◎ 전 2,550평 등으로 분할되었다.

At the time of the incident, all the registers and cadastral records of the above land were destroyed.

○위와 같이 분할된 □□□-▽ 토지 및 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지(이하 위 토지들을 ‘이 사건 원토지’라 한다)에 관하여 1954. 12. 6. 서울지방법원 의정부등기소(1962년경 폐소되어 현재는 의정부지방법원 의정부등기소) 접수 제4421호로, 멸실 전 등기의 접수 연월일이 ‘불명’, 등기원인 및 일자가 ‘1938. 4. 1. 매매’인 피고 경기도 명의의 멸실회복 소유권이전등기(이하 ‘이 사건 멸실회복등기’라 한다)가 마쳐졌다.

[2]

○1964. 12. 28. 이 사건 원토지 중 □□□-▽ 토지가 □□□-▽ 전 4,625평으로 지적복구되고, 이 사건 원토지 중 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지가 ◇◇◇-◎ 전 186평으로 지적복구되었다.

○위와 같이 지적복구된 □□□-▽ 토지가 (지번 1 생략) 대 188㎡, (지번 2 생략) 전 9,540㎡, (지번 3 생략) 대 172㎡ 등으로 분할 및 지목변경되었고, 위와 같이 지적복구된 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지가 ◇◇◇-◎ 대 615㎡로 지목변경되었다.

○위와 같이 분할 및 지목변경된 (지번 1 생략) 토지, (지번 2 생략) 토지, (지번 3 생략) 토지 및 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지가 아래 표 기재와 같이 환지, 합병 및 분할 등을 거쳐 별지 제1항 내지 제6항 기재 토지(이하 ‘이 사건 1토지, 2토지, 3토지, 4토지, 5토지, 6토지’라 한다)가 되었다.

본문내 포함된 표 환지 전 토지 환지 처분일 환지 후 토지 합병 및 분할 시기 합병 및 분할 후 토지 (지번 1 생략)대 188㎡ 1985. 5. 11. (지번 4 생략) 대 142.7㎡(별지 제6항 기재 토지, 이하 ‘이 사건 6토지’) (지번 2 생략)전 9,540㎡ 1985. 5. 11. (지번 5 생략) 대 1,435.1㎡ 1995. 1. 20.(분할) (지번 5 생략) 대 1,393.4㎡(별지 제2항 기재 토지, 이하 ‘이 사건 2토지’) (지번 6 생략) 대 1,131.1㎡ 2010. 2. 26.(합병) (지번 7 생략) 대 3,075.3㎡ (별지 제3항 기재 토지, 이하 ‘이 사건 3토지’) (지번 7 생략) 대 1,744.8㎡ (지번 8 생략) 대 693㎡(별지 제4항 기재 토지, 이하 ‘이 사건 4토지’) (지번 9 생략) 대 247.9㎡ (지번 10 생략) 대 1,463.1㎡ (지번 3 생략)대 172㎡ 1985. 5. 11. (지번 11 생략) 대 125.1㎡(별지 제1항 기재 토지, 이하 ‘이 사건 1토지’) ◇◇◇-◎대 615㎡ 1985. 5. 11. (지번 12 생략) 대 626.4㎡(별지 제5항 기재 토지, 이하 ‘이 사건 5토지’)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the original land was owned by the Plaintiff, on December 6, 1954, the registration of the destruction of the instant land was completed under the name of Defendant Gyeonggi-do on December 6, 1954, and thereafter, the original land became the land of this case 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 land following the division, land category change, replotting, and annexation after the cadastral restoration on December 28, 1964. Accordingly, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the destruction of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant Gyeonggi-do’s assertion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff did not have any substance as a juristic person or the term of 50 years elapsed from August 30, 1985.

The Plaintiff disposed of the original land of this case to another person and lost its ownership, or on April 1, 1938, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do purchased the original land of this case from the Plaintiff as a concentration site or a practice site on December 6, 1954, and completed the registration of destruction or recovery of the original land of this case under the name of Defendant Gyeonggi-do. The acquisition by prescription was completed by Defendant Gyeonggi-do by occupying the original land of this case for twenty (20) years from the date of the purchase or for ten (10) years from the date of the above registration. Therefore, the registration of destruction or recovery of the original land of this case is an effective registration consistent with the substantive relation.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff corporation

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 3, and 4, the plaintiff was established as an unlimited partnership company established on August 30, 1935 in order for non-party 1, etc. to jointly manage and benefit from the heritage of the non-party 3, and the plaintiff's duration was extended again for 50 years from August 30, 1985.

Therefore, the defendant-do's assertion that the plaintiff did not have any substance as a corporation or that the period of 50 years elapsed from August 30, 1985 expires is without merit.

B. Plaintiff’s ownership

1) According to the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, it is stated that the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale of the above land on December 12, 1935 is completed with respect to the land at Dogsung land before the land at issue is divided, and the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale of the above land at issue is completed on March 28, 193 by Nonparty 1.

2) Even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc. in a civil trial, the facts which have been established in the already established civil case shall not be rejected without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da47292, Jun. 29, 1995; 99Da58471, Sept. 8, 2000).

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 16-1, 2, and 3, in the case of the Seoul District Court 96Gahap68113, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased 98 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun △△△△△△△△△ (number 13 omitted) from the non-party 1 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and submitted as evidence a copy of the above registration certificate as evidence. In the case of the △△△, the plaintiff denied the existence of the original copy of the above registration certificate, but the Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court, admitted the plaintiff's claim by recognizing that the non-party 4, who was the former representative of the plaintiff, was possessing the above registration certificate and the original was duly established, but it is recognized that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal at the time of the government, recognizing that the above decision was justifiable.

Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the original such as copy of the above registration certificate exists and the original is deemed to have been duly formed.

3) Article 60 of the Registration of Real Estate Act of Japan, which was used in the Republic of Korea as of March 18, 1912 through 1935 pursuant to the Joseon Real Estate Registration Decree (No. 9 of the Decree on March 18, 1912), provides that “When completing the registration of the registry, the registration number, the date and number of applications, the number of copies of applications, the priority number and the purport of the registration shall be stated in the document or copy of the application proving the grounds for registration, and such registration shall be returned to the person entitled to registration by means of suppressing the registration of the registry.” According to such provision, where a registration certificate is issued, it shall be presumed that the registration management is registered in the application for registration

4) According to the above, on March 28, 193, Nonparty 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance with respect to the above land on March 28, 193, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase on the above land on December 12, 1935, and the existence and authenticity of the original registration certificate is recognized, and the original registration certificate is divided into the land at △ Doe land and the land at the place of auction, so it is recognized that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the original land of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 1935.

C. Registration of the destruction or recovery of this case in the name of Defendant Gyeonggi-do

1) According to the above, at the time of the Korean War, all the registers and cadastral records of the original land of this case were destroyed at the time of the Korean War, and on December 6, 1954 as to the original land of this case, the registration for the restoration of the destruction of the original land of this case was completed under the name of Defendant Gyeonggi-do.

2) Where the registration of transfer of ownership is completed in the real estate register, the registrant is presumed to have acquired a legitimate ownership based on the grounds for registration, and the registration is presumed to have been duly accepted and processed by the registry official, barring any particular circumstance. The legal principle on the presumption of presumption of such registration applies likewise to cases where the registration of transfer of ownership was completed by the procedure for recovery registration after the loss of the registry. As seen earlier, even if the date of receipt of the former registration and the receipt number were to be “ineligible” as seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the registration official was legally treated by the application for registration accompanied by an official document to prove his right to the former registration, such as a copy of the land cadastre, according to the summary of the registration of recovery of destruction, unless there is a special reason (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da1938, Oct. 29, 196; 96Da12511, Oct. 17, 196, etc.).

3) On October 15, 1952, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court stated that an application for registration of recovery of real estate, the whole or part of which has been destroyed due to a disaster such as June 25, 1952, shall be accompanied by the certificate of completion of the former registration, and where submission of the certificate is impossible, a certified copy or abstract of the register immediately before the destruction is made, a certified copy or abstract of the land register, a certified copy of the land register, and other official documents certifying the rights. Here, an official document certifying the rights in this context shall be deemed to mean “a certificate prepared by a competent public official proving that the applicant is the owner.”

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 11, the defendant Gyeonggi-do is acknowledged as attaching a certificate of land ownership on June 30, 1954 prepared by the head of the Dong-Eup, as a public document certifying the right because the previous certificate of registration cannot be attached at the time of the application for the registration of the restoration of destruction of this case.

However, according to the Cadastral Act (Act No. 165 of Dec. 1, 1950) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 497 of Apr. 1, 1951), a land cadastre and cadastral map shall be kept in a tax office prior to the amendment by Act No. 829 of Apr. 1, 1951, and the location, lot number, land category, land register and the address, name or name of the owner of the land shall be registered in the land cadastre, and the inspection of the land register and the issuance of a certified copy thereof shall be also filed with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the land register, and the land register and cadastral map prepared by the above tax office shall be kept in accordance with the above cadastral record and shall be arranged in accordance with the notification of the movement of the head of the tax office. According to these provisions, the land ownership and cadastral map shall be prepared and kept to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the registration of the land (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da181820, Sept. 2, 19, 2).

Thus, the above certificate of land ownership prepared by the head of the Dong-Eup shall not be deemed to constitute the "certificate prepared by the competent public official proving that the applicant is the owner of the land" under the above "Outline for the Registration of Restoration of Destruction".

4) If so, the registration of the destruction and recovery of the original land of this case, which was completed on December 6, 1954, in the name of Defendant Gyeonggi-do, was reversed.

(d) Loss of Plaintiff’s ownership or purchase of Defendant Gyeonggi-do;

1) 피고 경기도의 주장은, 다음과 같은 사정에 비추어 보면 원고가 이 사건 원토지를 타인에게 처분하여 그 소유권을 상실하였거나, 피고 경기도가 1938. 4. 1. 원고로부터 이 사건 원토지를 농도원 부지 내지 실습지로 매수한 것으로 인정된다는 것이다. 즉 △서울사세청이 작성한 의정부읍 귀속농지대장(을가 제10호증의 1, 2)에 □□□-◎ 내지 (지번 14 생략) 토지, (지번 15 생략) 토지 등의 소유자가 원고로 기재되어 있으면서, 이 사건 원토지의 소유자가 피고 경기도로 기재되어 있고, △원고가 작성한 소작인명부(을가 제5호증의 2)에 이 사건 원토지가 기재되어 있지 않으며, △농지개혁법에 따라 작성된 농지소표(을가 제11호증의 1, 2, 을가 제12호증)에 (지번 16 생략) 토지, (지번 14 생략) 토지 등의 지주가 원고로 기재되어 있으면서, 이 사건 원토지의 지주가 원고로 기재되어 있지 않고, △원고는 합명회사로서 농가가 될 수 없어 그 소유 토지에 대하여 농지개혁법에 의하여 보상신청을 하여야 하는데, 그 보상신청서(을나 제1호증의 2, 3)에 이 사건 원토지가 기재되어 있지 않다는 것이다.

2) The following are examined according to the above evidence and evidence as to the farmland ledger to which Defendant Gyeonggi-do’s assertion belongs, as well as Eul’s statement Nos. 10, 11, and 17, the result of the party deliberation document verification, and the fact inquiry about the Director of the National Archives.

There is no evidence to deem that the above farmland register was prepared in accordance with the land cadastre rule (No. 45 of April 25, 1914) and was prepared based on the presumed land cadastre (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da3083, Feb. 26, 1993).

The above farmland ledger is a sign, which is a "reverted Government Eup of the original farmland ledger", and it is not clear that the preparing entity is the preparing entity because the above farmland ledger is printed in the same letter as "Seoul city Tax Office" by lot number, and it is not clear that the date of preparation is not written.

In the above case, the term “outline for the restoration of land (forest) register” under the Directive No. 1 of the Seoul City Tax Office, dated July 8, 1952, is subject to the restoration of the land cadastre and the forest land register, not the farmland register to which the original farmland register belongs. In the above farmland register, there is no “the address, signature, or name of the creditor or superficies” as stipulated in the above Directive, while there is no “culor” item not stipulated in the above Directive, it is difficult to view the basis for the preparation of the above farmland register as the above Directive, and there is no other material that can be seen as the basis for the preparation of the above farmland register, and it is doubtful whether the documents such as the above farmland register were

In the case of land (number 16 omitted), land (number 17 omitted), land category (number 14 omitted), land category, land register, lease price, and lease grade (number 14 omitted) are different from the contents written in the farmland land list (Gai No. 11-1, 2) and the contents written in the protocol by lot number in the farmland ledger to which the above farmland belongs (Gai 10-2).

■ 위 귀속농지대장의 지번별 조서 241쪽에 (지번 18 생략) 토지, (지번 19 생략) 토지, □□□-◎ 토지, (지번 16 생략) 토지, (지번 17 생략) 토지, (지번 14 생략) 토지, □□□-▽ 토지, (지번 15 생략) 토지 순으로 기재되어 있고, 242쪽에 (지번 20 생략) 토지, (지번 21 생략) 토지, ◇◇◇-◎ 토지, (지번 22 생략) 토지, (지번 23 생략) 토지 순으로 기재되어 있어 지번이 누락되거나 순차적으로 기재되어 있지 않다.

■ 위 귀속농지대장에는 농지와 무관한 하천, 도로, 제방이 기재되어 있고, 귀속재산에 해당하지 않는 (지번 19 생략) 토지, □□□-◎ 토지, (지번 16 생략) 토지, (지번 17 생략) 토지, (지번 14 생략) 토지, (지번 20 생략) 토지, (지번 22 생략) 토지 등이 기재되어 있다.

In the above-mentioned farmland register, the number of each lot number in the above-mentioned farmland register has been set as the length, and the entry exceeds the prescribed width, and the farmland register in other areas (in the case of female-gun, male-gun, Eup-Myeon, strengthened Gun, Si-Eup, Myeon, Si-Gun, Myeon-gun, Myeon-gun, and Dong-Eup), all of which are different from the farmland register in the above-mentioned farmland register, because all of which are written only by the names of distributors.

3) In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the entry of the above farmland ledger claimed by the defendant Gyeonggi-do in the above farmland ledger is difficult.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the plaintiff disposed of the original land of this case to another person or that the defendant Gyeonggi-do purchased the original land of this case from the plaintiff by means of the above tenant list, etc., because there is no entry of the original land of this case, and the possibility of omission of the entry cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, Defendant Gyeonggi-do’s assertion that the Plaintiff lost its ownership by disposing of the original land of this case to another person or that Defendant Gyeonggi-do purchased the original land of this case from the Plaintiff is without merit.

E. Acquisition of prescription by Defendant Gyeonggi-do

1) The Defendant Gyeonggi-do’s assertion that purchased the original land of this case on April 1, 1938, completed the prescriptive acquisition by occupying it in peace and openly with the intention of ownership for twenty (20) years, and on December 6, 1954, as to the original land of this case, the prescriptive acquisition was completed by occupying it in good faith and openly and without negligence for ten (10) years after the completion of the registration of the destruction and recovery of the original land of this case.

2) The possession of an object refers to the objective relationship that appears to be in the factual control of a person under the social concept, and in order to have a de facto control, it is not necessarily a mere physical or realistic control over an object, but a decision should be made in accordance with the social concept in consideration of the time and spatial relationship with the object, the principal right relationship with the object, the possibility of control by others, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da888, Feb. 24, 1998; 97Da2665, Aug. 22, 197).

3) The fact that there was a title in the registry does not mean the possession of real estate. Thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant Gyeonggi-do occupied the original land of this case solely on the ground that the registration for the restoration of the destruction of the original land of this case was completed since December 6, 1954 in the name of Defendant Gyeonggi-do.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant Gyeonggi-do purchased the original land of this case from the Plaintiff as the concentration source site or the practice site, and the entries in Gap evidence 11, Eul 6, 7, 10-1, 2 are insufficient to recognize that Defendant Gyeonggi-do occupied the original land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this fact.

Therefore, Defendant Gyeonggi-do’s above assertion that Defendant Gyeonggi-do occupied the original land of this case and the prescriptive acquisition has been completed is without merit.

4. Sub-committee:

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the original land of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 1935, and on December 6, 1954, there is no evidence to prove that the presumption of the registration of the destruction of the original land of this case was reversed under the name of the Defendant Gyeonggi-do, which was finished on the original land of this case, and that the registration is consistent with the substantial relation. Since the original land of this case was made through division, land category change, replotting, merger, etc. after the cadastral recovery on December 28, 1964, the original land of this case was owned by 1,2,3,4,5,6 land of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of the cancellation of the registration of the destruction of the original land of this case, which was completed on December 6, 1954.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the implementation of the above cancellation registration procedure against the defendant Gyeonggi-do is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this conclusion, so the appeal by the defendant Gyeonggi-do is without merit.

The following facts are acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the overall purport of oral arguments, as well as the evidence set forth in Eul-B, Eul-B, 4, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, Eul-C, 1 and 4, and the result of the on-site inspection of the party.

[1]

○이 사건 원토지(□□□-▽ 토지 및 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지)에 관하여 1954. 12. 6. 피고 경기도 명의의 이 사건 멸실회복등기가 마쳐졌는데, 이 사건 원토지에 관하여 1960. 1. 12. 등기원인을 매매로 하는 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

After ○○, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of a third party on May 1960 and March 1962 with respect to part of the portion of the original land in the instant case. After the cadastral recovery on December 28, 1964, the said land became the land of this case 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 land through division, land category change, replotting, merger, etc.

On July 24, 1968, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 5 was completed again with respect to the part of the above shares, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 5 was completed on July 24, 1968.

○한편으로 이 사건 원토지 중 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지에 관하여 1962. 9. 14. 소외 6 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌고, 위 토지가 1964. 12. 28. 지적복구된 후 지목변경, 환지 등을 거쳐 이 사건 5토지가 되었다.

With respect to the land 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as shown below.

본문내 포함된 표 이 사건 1토지 순번 등기일 등기원인 소유자 및 기타사항 1 1968. 7. 24. 1968. 5. 1. 공유물분할 소외 5 2 2000. 2. 9. 1988. 2. 13. 증여 ▷▷학원 3 2003. 2. 7. 2003. 1. 24. 대물변제 피고 삼합종합건설 이 사건 2토지 순번 등기일 등기원인 소유자 및 기타사항 1 1968. 7. 24. 1968. 5. 1. 매매 소외 5 2 1994. 12. 31. 1994. 11. 29. 매매 1435.1분의 41.7 지분, 소외 7 3 1995. 4. 13. 1995. 4. 11. 공유물분할 위 1. 소외 7 지분, 소외 5 4 2000. 2. 9. 1988. 2. 13. 증여 1435.1분의 1393.4 지분, ▷▷학원 5 2003. 2. 7. 2003. 1. 24. 대물변제 위 3. ▷▷학원 지분, 피고 삼합종합건설 이 사건 3, 6토지 순번 등기일 등기원인 소유자 및 기타사항 1 1968. 7. 24. 1968. 5. 1. 매매 소외 5 2 2000. 2. 9. 1988. 2. 13. 증여 ▷▷학원 3 2003. 2. 7. 2003. 1. 24. 대물변제 피고 삼합종합건설 이 사건 4토지 순번 등기일 등기원인 소유자 및 기타사항 1 1968. 7. 24. 1968. 5. 1. 매매 소외 5 2 2000. 2. 9. 1988. 2. 13. 증여 ▷▷학원 3 2003. 2. 7. 2003. 1. 24. 대물변제 피고 삼합종합건설 4 2003. 12. 9. 2003. 11. 8. 매매 소외 8 5 2006. 10. 10. 2006. 8. 29. 매매 피고 3 이 사건 5토지 순번 등기일 등기원인 소유자 및 기타사항 1 1962. 9. 14. 1962. 9. 10. 매매 소외 6 2 2006. 8. 21. 1979. 8. 6. 협의분할에 의한 상속 각 4분의 1 지분, 소외 9, 소외 10, 소외 11, 소외 12 3 2007. 2. 5. 2006. 12. 16. 전부, 제1심 피고 소외 13

[2]

As seen above, on July 24, 1968, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the non-party 5 with respect to the entire land of this case 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The non-party 5 entered into an installation contract for the construction of a commercial building on the land of this case 2 and 3 with a loan of construction funds between the city of the government on July 1, 1975, and completed the construction of the above building on March 1, 1976.

On March 1976, with respect to the building newly built by Nonparty 5 (hereinafter “the building of this case 2”) on the land of this case, the registration was completed on August 14, 2003, while the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the Gu Government-si on August 14, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 14, who is an infant of Nonparty 5.

In March 1976, with respect to the building newly built by Nonparty 5 on the land of this case (hereinafter “the building of this case 3”), the registration was completed on April 1, 200 on the building management ledger, and the registration was completed on April 1, 200, on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer in the above Nonparty 14, an infant of Nonparty 5, was completed.

The non-party 5 built a new building on the land of this case and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 14 was completed on March 31, 2003, while the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 5's children was completed immediately on the same day.

With respect to the land of this case 2, 3, and 4, the shape of the instant 2, 3, and 4 buildings appears in the aerial photography taken around November 1979, around August 1989, around December 199, around December 1997, and around May 2014.

○한편으로 소외 15가 1990년경부터 2014년 이후까지 소외 5, 그의 아들로서 ▷▷학원의 이사장인 위 소외 14, 그의 처로서 피고 삼합종합건설의 대표이사인 소외 16의 허락을 받아 이 사건 1토지에서 총각무, 배추, 고추 등을 재배하였다.

○○ Nonparty 5 died on July 21, 1997 and became the co-inheritors as Nonparty 14, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, the spouse of Nonparty 17, Defendant 5, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8. The above Nonparty 17 died on February 2, 201, and died and became the co-inheritors. The above Nonparty 14 and the Defendants were co-inheritors.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1954. 12. 6. 이 사건 원토지(□□□-▽ 토지 및 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지)에 관하여 마쳐진 피고 경기도 명의의 이 사건 멸실회복등기는 무효이고, 이 사건 원토지 중 □□□-▽ 토지가 환지 등을 거쳐 이 사건 1, 2, 3, 4토지가 되었으므로, 이들 토지에 관하여 마쳐진 소외 5, 피고 삼합종합건설, 피고 3 명의의 소유권이전등기 역시 무효이다.

Therefore, against Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, who are the inheritor of Nonparty 5, sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant land 41.7/1435. (The Plaintiff also sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the said shares against Nonparty 14, who is an infant of Nonparty 5 in the first instance trial, sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the said shares, and the first instance judgment dismissed the said claim, and the Plaintiff did not appeal against this).

With respect to the construction of Samchid Construction, the registration of ownership transfer as to the portion on April 1393/1435.1 of the land of this case and the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration as to the land of this case 1 and 3. (The plaintiff filed in the first instance court for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration as to the land of this case as to the construction of Samchid Construction, but the judgment of the first instance court dismissed the claim, and the plaintiff did not appeal against this).

As to Defendant 3, the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration as to the land of this case shall be sought.

B. The defendants' assertion

이 사건 1, 2, 3, 4토지에 관하여 소외 5, ▷▷학원, 피고 삼합종합건설, 피고 3이 순차 소유권이전등기를 마치고 소유의 의사로 점유하여 그 소유권이전등기일부터 10년이 경과한 때, 또는 점유개시일부터 20년이 경과한 때 취득시효가 완성되었으므로, 원고는 위 주장과 같은 말소를 구할 수 없다.

3. Determination

A. 2, 3

1) According to the above facts, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 24, 1968 with respect to the land of this case 2 and 3. The construction contract was concluded between △△△△ and 5 on July 1, 1975 for the construction of a new building on the land of this case 2 and 3 and the construction of a new building was completed on March 1, 1976, and the building was registered as owned by △△ on the building ledger as owned by △△ on November 1, 1989 for the land of this case 2 and 3, around August 198, 197, around December 24, 1997, and around May 1, 2014, and the shape of the building of this case 2 and 3 at an airline taken by △△△△△ and the shape of the building of this case was made by Nonparty 5 on July 1, 197, and Defendant co-inheritors died on the other hand.

2) Accordingly, the instant building 2 and 3 are deemed to be owned by Nonparty 5 as being newly constructed by Nonparty 5 with a loan from the City of Government, and thus, it is deemed to be owned by Nonparty 5. As to the instant land 2 and 3 on July 24, 1968, when the ownership transfer registration under Nonparty 5 was completed, Nonparty 5 occupied the instant land 2 and 3 as the site for the instant building from March 3, 1976 to March 10, 1986.

Although Non-party 5 agreed to own the building 2 and 3 of this case as the owner of the building on July 24, 1968 and the building 2 and 3 of this case were registered as the owner of the building ledger by the government on July 24, 1968, Non-party 5 had the non-party 5 used the building 2 and 3 of this case as the site of the building 2 and 3 of this case from March 1976 to the Gu government on the part of Non-party 5 as the owner of the building 2 and 3 of this case. Such indirect possession continued for 10 years from March 1986, the non-party 5's death.

B. Two land in this case

1) 위 인정사실에 의하면, △이 사건 2토지에 관하여 1968. 7. 24. 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌고, △소외 5가 1975. 7. 1. 의정부시와 사이에 건축자금을 대출받아 이 사건 2, 3토지에 상가 건물을 신축하는 시설공사계약을 체결하고 1976. 3.경 이 사건 2건물의 신축을 완료하여 그 건물이 건축물대장에 의정부시 소유로 등록되었으며, △1994. 12. 31. 이 사건 2토지의 41.7/1435.1 지분에 관하여 소외 7 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다가 1995. 4. 13. 위 지분에 관하여 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐짐으로써 1995. 4. 13. 이 사건 2토지 전체에 관하여 다시 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌고, △2000. 2. 9. 이 사건 2토지의 1393.4/1435.1 지분에 관하여 등기원인을 ‘1988. 2. 13. 증여’로 하는 ▷▷학원 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다가 2003. 2. 7. 위 지분에 관하여 등기원인을 ‘2003. 1. 24. 대물변제’로 하는 피고 삼합종합건설 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌으며, △소외 5의 아들인 소외 14가 ▷▷학원의 이사장이고, 그의 처인 소외 16이 피고 삼합종합건설의 대표이사이며, △소외 5가 1997. 7. 21. 사망하고, 이 사건 2건물에 관하여 2003. 8. 14. 의정부시 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐지면서 같은 날 곧바로 위 소외 14 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

On the other hand, since a person who has registered a building site as an owner shall be deemed to have obtained possession by taking over the building site in ordinary cases, it shall not be determined that the fact of possession cannot be recognized without any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da20110, Jan. 16, 2001).

2) 그렇다면 △1995. 4. 13. 이 사건 2토지 전체에 관하여 다시 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후 소외 5가 이 사건 2토지 전체를 다시 이 사건 2건물의 부지로 점유하고 이러한 점유가 소외 5의 사망일인 1997. 7. 21.까지 계속되다가 소외 5의 공동상속인 또는 그 중 1인인 소외 14가 소외 5의 위 점유를 승계하였다고 할 것이고, △그 후 2000. 2. 9.부터는 ▷▷학원이, 2003. 2. 7.부터는 피고 삼합종합건설이 이 사건 2토지의 1393.4/1435.1 지분을 보유한 공유자로서 소외 5의 공동상속인 또는 그 중 1인인 위 소외 14에게 이 사건 2토지를 이 사건 2건물의 부지로 사용토록 함으로써 위 공유지분의 범위에서 이 사건 2토지를 간접점유하는 한편, 소외 5의 공동상속인 또는 그 중 1인인 위 소외 14가 승계한 위 점유가 이 사건 2토지의 41.7/1435.1 지분 범위에서 계속되었다고 할 것이다.

따라서 1995. 4. 13. 이 사건 2토지 전체에 관하여 다시 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후 소외 5, 그의 공동상속인 또는 그 중 1인인 소외 14, 2000. 2. 9. 소유권이전등기를 마친 ▷▷학원, 2003. 2. 7. 소유권이전등기를 마친 피고 삼합종합건설이 이 사건 2토지를 점유하고, 이러한 점유가 2005. 4. 13.까지 10년간 계속되었다고 할 것이다.

C. The land of this case 3

1) According to the above facts, on July 24, 1968, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 5 was completed with respect to the land of this case, and the non-party 5 entered into a construction contract for the construction of the commercial building on the land of this case 2 and 3 with the loan of the construction fund between the Gu government on July 1, 1975 and the Gu government on July 1, 1975, and completed the new construction of the three buildings of this case, the building was registered as owned by the government on the building ledger as owned by the government on the building ledger, and around November 1, 1979, around August 1, 1989, around December 24, 1997, and around May 5, 2014. On the other hand, the non-party 5 died on July 21, 197, the non-party 17, the non-party 4, and the non-party 17, the non-party 17, and the non-party co-inheritors.

2) Thus, as seen earlier, Nonparty 5 occupied the instant three land from March 1976 to the site of the instant three building from March 1976, and such possession continued for 20 years from March 196, the death of Nonparty 5.

D. The land of this case 4

1) According to the above facts, on July 24, 1968, △△△ completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 5 with respect to the land of this case. Nonparty 5 newly built the instant four buildings on the land of this case. On November 1, 1979, around August 1, 1989, around December 1997, and around May 201, 2014, the shape of the instant four buildings was shown in the aerial photography taken around May 31, 201, while the △△△△ completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the government city of March 31, 2003 with respect to the instant four buildings, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 14, which was Nonparty 5’s children, was completed immediately on the same day.

2) Thus, since the building of this case was newly constructed by Nonparty 5 and is deemed to be owned by Nonparty 5, on July 24, 1968, it is deemed that Nonparty 5 occupied the land of this case as the site of the building of this case from November 1, 1979 where the shape of the building of this case was displayed at the latest while the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the land of this case 4 on July 24, 1968 to Nonparty 5, and such possession continued for 10 years from November 1, 1989, when Nonparty 5 died, or his co-inheritors succeeded to the above possession after Nonparty 5’s death and continued for 20 years from November 1, 199.

Although Nonparty 5 agreed to own the instant four buildings at the time of the Government, and the instant four buildings were registered as owned in the building ledger as owned by the Council, on July 24, 1968, Nonparty 5, from November 1979 to November 20, 199, had Nonparty 5 use the instant four land as the site for the instant four buildings at the latest at the time of Non-Party 5’s completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Non-Party 5, as the owner of the instant four buildings. The said indirect possession continues to be for ten years from November 1, 1989, the death of Non-Party 5, or his co-inheritors continued to be for twenty years from November 1, 199, by succession to the said possession.

E. The land of this case

1) 위 인정사실에 의하면, △이 사건 1토지에 관하여 1968. 7. 24. 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기, 2000. 2. 9. ▷▷학원 명의의 소유권이전등기, 2003. 2. 7. 피고 삼합종합건설 명의의 소유권이전등기가 순차 마쳐졌는데, △소외 15가 1990년경부터 2014년 이후까지 소외 5, 그의 아들로서 ▷▷학원 이사장인 소외 14, 그의 처로서 피고 삼합종합건설의 대표이사인 소외 16의 허락을 받아 이 사건 1토지에서 농작물을 재배하였다.

2) 그렇다면 1990년경부터 소외 5가 소외 15를 점유매개자로 하여 이 사건 1토지를 간접점유하고, 2000. 2. 9.부터 ▷▷학원이 소외 15를 점유매개자로 하여 이 사건 1토지를 간접점유하고, 2003. 2. 7.부터 피고 삼합종합건설이 소외 15를 점유매개자로 하여 이 사건 1토지를 간접점유하여, 1990년경부터 2010년경까지 20년간 점유하였다고 할 것이다.

(f) Autonomous possession;

1) 이상에서 본 바와 같은 소외 5, 그의 공동상속인 또는 그 중 1인인 소외 14, ▷▷학원, 피고 삼합종합건설의 점유는 모두 소유의 의사로 선의, 평온 및 공연하게 점유한 것으로 추정된다.

The Plaintiff asserts that, without any authority, Defendant Gyeonggi-do completed the registration of the destruction and recovery of the original land of this case and that, as Nonparty 5 succeeded to the possession from Defendant Gyeonggi-do, the presumption of autonomous possession was broken.

However, in a case where a purchaser of land acquires possession of the land for the purpose by a sale and purchase contract, if it falls under the sale of the land of another person and it is impossible for the purchaser to acquire ownership immediately thereafter, it cannot be readily concluded that the purchaser obtained possession on the basis of the title which appears to have no intention to own in view of the nature of the source of possession right, and unless special circumstances are proved, such as that the purchaser knowingly purchased it with the knowledge that the purchaser did not have the right to dispose of it, it cannot be said that the presumption of possession with the intent to own by the purchaser is broken (Supreme Court Decision 97Da37661 delivered on March 16, 200).

위 인정사실에 의하면, 이 사건 원토지(□□□-▽ 토지 및 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지) 중 □□□-▽ 토지에 관하여 1954. 12. 6. 피고 경기도 명의의 이 사건 멸실회복등기가 마쳐졌다가 1960. 1. 12. 등기원인을 매매로 하는 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐지고, 이 사건 1, 2, 3, 4토지는 위 □□□-▽ 토지가 지적복구, 분할, 지목변경, 환지된 것이다. 당심증인 소외 18의 증언 등 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 소외 5가 위 □□□-▽ 토지에 관하여 피고 경기도에게 처분권한이 없다는 것을 알면서 이를 매수하였음을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이러한 점을 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 자주점유의 추정이 깨어진다는 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

2) 위 인정사실에 의하면, 이 사건 원토지(□□□-▽ 토지 및 ◇◇◇-◎ 토지)에 관하여 1954. 12. 6. 피고 경기도 명의의 이 사건 멸실회복등기가 마쳐졌는데, 이는 등기원인 및 일자가 ‘1938. 4. 1. 매매’인 소유권이전등기이고, 그 후 이 사건 원토지에 관하여 1960. 1. 12. 등기원인을 매매로 하는 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌고, △이 사건 원토지 중 □□□-▽ 토지의 일부 지분에 관하여 1960. 5.경과 1960. 3.경 제3자 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다가, 위 토지가 1964. 12. 28. 지적복구된 후 분할, 지목변경, 환지, 합병 등을 거쳐 이 사건 1, 2, 3, 4토지가 되었으며, △위 일부 지분에 관하여 다시 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐짐으로써 1968. 7. 24. 이 사건 1, 2, 3, 4토지 전체에 관하여 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

As above, in light of the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant Gyeonggi-do was completed on July 24, 1968 with respect to the land of this case 1, 2, 3, and 4, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 5 was completed on July 24, 1968, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff exercised his right to the said land prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit on January 12, 2012, it is recognized that Nonparty 5’s possession is occupied without negligence.

또한 이 사건 1, 2, 3, 4토지에 관하여 위와 같이 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다가 ▷▷학원, 피고 삼합종합건설 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌고, 위에서 본 바와 같이 원고가 위 토지들에 대하여 권리를 행사하였다는 사정을 인정할 증거도 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 앞서 본 바와 같은 ▷▷학원, 피고 삼합종합건설의 점유도 과실 없이 점유한 것으로 인정된다.

On the other hand, the requirements for prescriptive acquisition include not only direct possession but also indirect possession (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da8888 delivered on February 24, 1998).

(g) Completion of prescriptive acquisition;

1) 위에서 본 바에 의하면, △1968. 7. 24. 이 사건 2, 3토지에 관하여 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 상태에서 늦어도 1976. 3.경부터 소외 5가 이 사건 2, 3토지를 점유하여 그의 사망 이전인 1986. 3.경까지 10년간 점유하였고, △1995. 4. 13. 이 사건 2토지 전체에 다시 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후 소외 5, 그의 공동상속인 또는 그 중 1인인 소외 14, ▷▷학원, 피고 삼합종합건설이 소외 5의 사망 이후인 2005. 4. 13.까지 10년간 이 사건 2토지를 점유하였으며, △1968. 7. 24. 이 사건 3토지에 관하여 소외 5 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 상태에서 늦어도 1976. 3.경부터 소외 5가 이 사건 3토지를 점유하여 그의 사망 이전인 1996. 3.경까지 20년간 점유하였고, △위와 같은 점유는 모두 소유의 의사로 선의, 평온 및 공연하게 점유한 것으로 추정되거나 과실 없이 점유한 것으로 인정된다.

Therefore, the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land 2 and 3 was completed on March 1986 or on April 13, 2005, and the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land 2 was completed on April 13, 2005, and the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land 3 was completed on March 196.

However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was completed in the name of Nonparty 5 with respect to the shares in the instant 2-land against Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, co-inheritors of Nonparty 5, who are co-inheritors of Nonparty 5, is without merit. The Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was completed in the name of Nonparty 5 with respect to the shares in the instant 2-land. The Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was completed on February 7, 2003 with respect to the instant 3-land, was groundless.

2) According to the above, as to the land of this case on July 24, 1968, when the transfer registration of ownership in the name of Nonparty 5 was completed, from November 1, 1979 to November 1, 1989, Nonparty 5 occupied the land of this case for 10 years from around November 1, 1979, or from Nonparty 5 and his co-inheritors possessed the land of this case for 20 years from November 1, 199, and such possession is presumed to have been occupied in good faith, peace and public performance with the intention of ownership, or possessed without negligence.

Therefore, the prescriptive acquisition on the land of this case was completed on November 1, 1989 or on November 1, 1999.

However, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 3 seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was completed on October 10, 2006, on the land of this case, is without merit.

3) 위에서 본 바에 의하면, 1990년경부터 2010년경까지 소외 5, ▷▷학원, 피고 삼합종합건설이 이 사건 1토지를 점유하였으므로, 이 사건 1토지에 관하여 2010년경 취득시효가 완성되었다고 할 것이다.

However, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was completed on February 7, 2003 with respect to the land of this case, as to the land of this case, is without merit.

4. Sub-committee:

Therefore, the plaintiff's comprehensive construction, defendant 3, defendant 4, defendant 5, defendant 6, defendant 7, and defendant 8 are without merit.

The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds. The judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted the claims against the defendants 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and all claims against the defendants 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were accepted. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims against the above defendants are revoked in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part against the defendants 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the claims against the above defendants are dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judge Cho Young-young (Presiding Judge)