소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiff’s father C, MaD, and the Plaintiff’s successive stay in the order of 56m2 or below “the instant land”
on January 1, 2010, the acquisition by prescription was completed after possession for more than 20 years.
B. Even if Defendant C, D, and the Plaintiff did not possess the instant land, it constitutes the possession of a third party even if it was possessed.
2. Determination
A. The issue of whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession with the intention of possession or without the intention of possession is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, not by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of possession, or by all circumstances related to the possession, and thus, it should be determined externally and objectively. Thus, the objective circumstance that the possessor is proved that he/she acquired possession on the basis of the title that he/she is deemed to have no intention of ownership due to its nature, or that he/she cannot be deemed possession with the intent of exercising exclusive control as his/her own property by excluding another’s ownership, i.e., the possessor’s failure to act as a matter of course if he/she had expressed the real owner’s attitude of not ordinarily or if he/she did not act as the owner, the presumption is broken even in cases where it is proved that the possessor did not have the intention of rejection of
(Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997). B.
In light of the following circumstances, which may be recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, A-9, B-1, and C, D, and Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have occupied the instant land in sequential order. Even if they occupied the instant land, it shall be deemed that they occupied the instant land knowing that there was no legal act or other legal requirements that could constitute the cause of acquiring ownership at the time. Therefore, the presumption of possession with autonomy is presumed.