소유권확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The area of 423 square meters and 340 square meters of a D miscellaneous land in Gwangju Nam-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) is registered in the register of Gwangju District Court’s registration No. 7952, Nov. 23, 1973, which received as of November 29, 1958, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on November 29, 1958.
B. On December 13, 2018, the Defendant deposited KRW 98,045,500 for compensation (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Gwangju District Court Decision 7908 Decided December 13, 2018 on the ground that he/she was unable to identify the owner E’s address while accepting the instant land for the project of urban planning facilities, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on December 27, 2018.
C. The Plaintiff’s father F died on May 2, 1975, and F’s inheritors, on August 29, 2018, agreed on the division of inherited property with the purport that all the claims for the withdrawal of the instant deposit will revert to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Plaintiff’s assertion and determination as to the cause of claim
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same person as “F” and “E” recorded as the owner of the instant land in the registry, the Plaintiff’s decedent, and accordingly, the instant land is owned by F. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the heir of F.
Even if it is difficult to confirm that “F” and “E” are the same person, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land cultivated by F for at least 20 years from May 2, 1975 when F died, and met the requirements for the acquisition by prescription under Article 245 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion, such as the purport of the claim, is reasonable.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 13, whether "F" and "E" are the same person, the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 12 are alone the plaintiff's father, "F" and the land of this case.