소유권이전등기
1. The defendant is based on the sale and purchase on December 31, 1990, with respect to the 198 square meters of the 198 square meters road, Hong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun.
1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. On December 31, 1990, the Plaintiff purchased approximately 79,934 square meters of forest E (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) from the Defendant’s father D, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, for KRW 14 million (hereinafter “the instant contract”), and paid KRW 4 million of the down payment on the date of the contract to D, KRW 9 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 9 million on January 21, 1991, and KRW 1 million of the remainder on February 12, 1991.
On March 29, 191, forest land before subdivision was divided into 3,916 square meters of F forest land (hereinafter “F forest land after subdivision”), C road 198 square meters (hereinafter “instant mountain land”), G forest land 3,820 square meters (hereinafter “G forest land after subdivision”).
On June 18, 1991, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer only for F forest and G forest after the division, except for the instant real estate among forest land before the division.
D died on October 9, 2010, and the defendant inherited the land in the dispute of this case by the agreement on the division of inherited property.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 [including branch numbers, the defendant asserts that Gap 2-2 (Receipt) was forged, but in full view of the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the stamp image appraisal, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the whole document, and there is no other evidence to prove that the document was forged], the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership as to the land in the dispute of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription
A. The defendant asserts that "the land in this case was used as a road by neighboring residents, and the plaintiff did not own it directly," thus, the plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer registration under the sales contract of this case had already expired by prescription around 200, which was before the lawsuit of this case.
As to this, the plaintiff is before the division from D.