소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows, except where the judgment on the new argument made by the plaintiff in this court is added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. F "O" of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
3. The addition;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was distributed from the Defendant pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 561 of Oct. 13, 1960, hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”). The Plaintiff was allocated land U, V, W, X, X, Y, Z, AA, and AB (hereinafter referred to as “the former Farmland Reform Act”). The land B before subdivision is a facility attached to the said Monuri farmland, and was distributed along with the said Monuri farmland. The Plaintiff was allocated as a number of land attached to the said Monuri farmland, and the land B before subdivision was converted into farmland before subdivision in around 1955 and started possession after the said land was divided into farmland. Thus, the Plaintiff’s possession of the said land partially substituted is an independent possession.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on July 22, 2001, which was 20 years from the date of starting July 22, 1981 with respect to the land in this case as the land in this case, as the starting point for starting the land in this case.
In a preparatory document dated April 5, 2018 submitted by the Plaintiff to this court, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant land is subject to a claim for ownership transfer registration based on distribution under the former Farmland Reform Act. However, in the case of the claim for ownership transfer registration, it is separate subject matter of lawsuit by reason of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da49922, Aug. 23, 1996). However, insofar as the Plaintiff did not explicitly modify the purport of the claim, it cannot be deemed that it added the selective claim. Thus, the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on July 22, 2001.