소유권이전등기
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is also a cadastral survey result (1) out of the land size of 524 square meters in Seopo-si, Seopopopopo-si.
1. The plaintiff asserted that on August 10, 1982, the plaintiff purchased 1,644 square meters prior to D in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (the part of E land at the time), and on August 23, 1982, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the above land, the plaintiff continuously occupied the land survey result in attached Form 524 square meters prior to Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, 524 square meters adjacent to the above land, as the owner of the land, as the intention of ownership transfer registration procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription against the defendant, the owner of the land in dispute at issue, who is the owner of the land at issue.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff possessed the part of the land in the dispute in this case, which is owned by the defendant without any legal ground, and sought the return of the land as a counterclaim.
2. Determination on the above assertion
A. In this case, as to the completion of the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff’s possession, the fact that the Plaintiff occupied all or part of the land in the dispute of this case from October 23, 1982 to October 23, 1982 is without dispute between the parties, and the said Plaintiff’s possession is presumed to be possession due to F’s intent. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff acquired by prescription the land in its possession on August 23, 2002, for which 20 years have elapsed since the commencement of the possession.
I would like to say.
In this regard, the defendant knew that the part of the land in the dispute in this case was not owned by the plaintiff on or around March 4, 1989 through the land survey, and therefore, the plaintiff's possession is deemed to be an owner of another. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of evidence No. 4 alone, after March 4, 1989, lost the presumption of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention
B. The plaintiff possessed.