소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the Plaintiff asserted in the court of first instance, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 10 and 11 submitted in the court of first instance, and the Plaintiff’s personal examination result
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
In addition, with respect to the preliminary claims added by the plaintiff at the trial, the following judgments shall be added.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted collection of earth and rocks from the land before subdivision with permission for collecting earth and rocks, and had a manager permanently posted a management Dong on the land before subdivision including the instant land and managed the instant land before subdivision. The instant sales contract was concluded under the condition of permission for collecting earth and rocks, and since the remainder was not paid, even after the registration of transfer was made under the name of J designated by I, the Plaintiff still occupies the instant land as owned by the Plaintiff until now.
Therefore, on November 17, 2005, when the transfer registration of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant, the starting point of November 17, 1995, and the period of twenty years thereafter passed thereafter, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case by prescription. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the completion of the prescription period for possession of the land of this case to the plaintiff.
B. First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for a period of 20 years, it is insufficient to recognize such points solely based on the descriptions of the health care unit and evidence Nos. 12 through 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Even if the Plaintiff has occupied the instant land for twenty (20) years, the seller’s possession of real estate by selling it to another person is an owner, barring special circumstances.