건물철거 및 토지인도청구 등의 소
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the additional allegations made by the Defendants in this court under paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendants asserted that, after Defendant B’s husband’s death on October 17, 1994, the above gift agreement was null and void as acts contrary to social order, and that the Plaintiff’s husband G, who was the owner of each of the instant land, was in possession of each of the instant land in peace and public performance for twenty (20) years and completed the prescriptive acquisition on October 18, 2014. Although the Plaintiff’s father G, who was the owner of each of the instant land, was aware of or was able to know the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by the Defendants, he completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant land due to the gift, and the Plaintiff was actively involved in the said gift act, and thus, the above gift agreement was null and void as acts contrary to social order, and the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name was null and void. Thus, the Plaintiff’s owner of each of the instant land cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that each of the instant land was the Plaintiff.
The Defendants, as alleged by the Defendants, occupied each of the instant land from October 17, 1994 to twenty (20) years from October 18, 2014, and completed the prescriptive acquisition on October 18, 2014.
Even if the Plaintiff’s father G, who was the owner of each of the instant lands at the time, knowingly donated each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff with knowledge of such fact, thereby having committed an unlawful act of omitting the obligation to transfer ownership due to the completion of prescriptive acquisition in relation to the Defendants, or there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff actively participated in G’s gift act. Accordingly, each of the instant lands is concerned.