소유권이전등기
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows, except where the court cites the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance or adds the judgment on the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A part which is to be used or to add judgment;
A. Cutd part of the judgment of the court of first instance at the bottom of No. 5-6.
this subsection shall be filled by the following:
D. As to the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the ground of the “transfer on the 10th of the same month” on December 16, 1974, and the “acquisition and takeover of the returned property on June 11, 1991” was completed in the Defendant’s future.
A person shall be appointed.
B. The part of additional determination (Plaintiff’s assertion on the conversion of the Plaintiff’s autonomous possession) 1) Plaintiff (1) concluded the instant sales contract with the content that Plaintiff (1) occupied the instant land and purchased the instant land from Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 18, 1980, and did not complete payment by January 17, 1981, which was the remaining payment date. However, the instant sales contract was not rescinded on the ground that the Defendant did not have expressed his intent to cancel the sales contract to Plaintiff C.
(2) However, the limitation period is completed if the right of rescission under the sales contract is not exercised within ten years from the time it can be exercised as a formation right. Since the termination of January 18, 1991, the following day from January 18, 1981, which was the date following the date of the final payment prohibition, the right to rescission of the sales contract of this case and the right to claim the remainder performance became extinct, the net C had the status of the owner who paid the purchase price in full, and the possession of the land of this case was converted into possession independently. Since the Plaintiff succeeded to possession after the dead of the deceased C ( June 4, 2007), the acquisition by prescription was completed on January 19, 201.
(3) The Defendant’s acquisition by prescription is based on the Plaintiff.