소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment falling under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. As the grounds of appeal, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s donation of K’s inheritance share (952/5292, hereinafter “instant share”) from K on November 2, 2017 is substantially the same as the division of inherited property. As such, the Defendant is a general successor with respect to the instant share, and the Defendant does not constitute a new interested party after the completion of prescriptive acquisition, and accordingly, is obligated to register the ownership transfer as stated in the claim.
Even if the acquisition by prescription of possession of an immovable has been completed, if the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate has been completed to a third party with respect to such real estate without registering it, the possessor shall not oppose such third party.
(1) In a case where a person who is a successor receives a donation from an ancestor, who is an owner, and completes the registration of ownership transfer, barring special circumstances, such as where the donation is deemed identical to the actual division of inherited property, the registered titleholder shall not be deemed a person in the same position as the previous owner, and shall be deemed a new interested person after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, barring special circumstances, such as where the donation is deemed identical to the actual division of inherited property.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da56495 delivered on April 10, 1998, etc.). On November 2, 2017, after January 31, 1996, the expiration date of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession of the instant real estate, the Defendant’s donation of the instant shares, which is the inheritance shares of K, by a single co-inheritors, among other co-inheritors with respect to the instant real estate, is the same as the division of inherited property among the inheritors. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is acceptable.