시효취득을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The summary of the instant case is the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the land owned by the Defendant, which is a local government, based on the completion of prescription.
2. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 1, 1961 with respect to the instant land of Pyeongtaek-si B forest land 6,159 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). B. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 1, 1961. Of the foregoing real estate, the part of “b” in the instant land of 679 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
in possession of the company. [The existence of no dispute over the facts of recognition, entry of Gap Nos. 3 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
3. The Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff’s mother, cultivated the instant dispute land from March 3, 195 to around March 3, 195, and the Defendant succeeded to the possession of the said dispute land, and occupied the land in peace and public performance for 20 years from March 30, 1993 with the intention to own the said dispute land, thereby completing the prescription for acquisition on March 30, 2013.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land in the dispute in this case to the plaintiff on the ground of the completion of the prescription period.
4. If the possessor proves that he/she occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the fact that it does not meet the legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of commencement of possession without permission, the presumption of possession with intention to own the real estate can be broken.
In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the health stand, the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the evidence stated as evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (including branch numbers) as to this case, the defendant's possession of the disputed land of this case is a bad faith unauthorized possession, and the presumption of possession with intention to hold it independently. The defendant's possession of the disputed land of this case is a bad faith unauthorized possession, and the evidence Nos. 1 and 8 as well as witness D's testimony alone is recognized.