소유권이전등기청구
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 10, 1917 (the death of October 3, 1930, hereinafter “the deceased”). The deceased’s inherited property was inherited by the Defendant B, a South-North,.
B. On September 20, 1982, the Plaintiff purchased 19,99m2 (hereinafter “fluorial land”) for the E farm site E in Yacheon-si (hereinafter “fluorial land”) adjacent to the instant forest and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the receipt of No. 12412 on October 4, 1982.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 4 of Evidence Nos. 3, Eul-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On May 1956, the Plaintiff’s father’s deceased F (Death on March 31, 1971) purchased the forest of this case from Defendant B and managed the forest of this case by planting night trees. After the Plaintiff’s death, the Plaintiff succeeded to and managed possession of the forest of this case as to the forest of this case, while planting trees around 1970.
The Plaintiff, while purchasing adjacent land on September 20, 1982 and creating and operating a stock farm, uses the forest of this case as feed storage place and a stock farm as necessary for the operation of the stock farm, or is occupying the forest of this case after clearing it as dry field.
Therefore, since September 20, 1982, the Plaintiff occupied the forest of this case in a peaceful manner with its own intent from September 20 to September 20, 1982, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on September 20, 2002 for the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition on September 20, 2002, where the Plaintiff purchased the land adjacent to the forest of this case.
B. Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to confirm that the instant forest land without any lot number is owned by Defendant B, among the deceased’s address indicated in the land cadastre column, as the Plaintiff subrogated to Defendant B’s land cadastre.
3. The Plaintiff’s claim on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is premised on the Plaintiff’s possession of the forest of this case.
The possession of an object is a factual control over any person in light of social norms.