beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.09.01 2016가단120776

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 1912, the land in the name of G, located in G, the address of which is F on September 29, 1912, the land category was changed to a road on December 28, 1962, and on November 19, 2008, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of H and 13 other (hereinafter “H, etc.”) as to the land E on November 19, 208.

B. On January 20, 1939, the Defendant is a person who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Daehan-gun D (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. The I completed the registration of ownership transfer for land E on December 30, 2015 on December 22, 2015, and the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer for each half of E’s land on June 24, 2016. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27175, Apr. 26, 2016>

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The assertion (1) The land acquired ownership on September 29, 1912 by the network G on the ground of the circumstances, and became a farmer. From around 1970, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future including H on November 19, 2008.

(2) Even after the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of H, etc. has been completed, H continued in the above land, but H has become difficult to establish a farmer’s house any longer due to the elderly age, and from that point, H’s entry into the building on the land in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, the neighboring land around 2000 and used E’s land as the parking lot for commercial buildings.

(3) Thereafter, the Plaintiffs acquired ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer on June 24, 2016 with respect to land E.

(4) At the time of purchase of E land, the Plaintiffs considered that the entire site created and used as a parking lot was E land.

However, this is the case.