beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.08 2017가단111352

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and F refer to G as a penalty.

G died on February 28, 1941

B. On September 13, 1979, the Plaintiff completed each registration of transfer of ownership from the former owner F with respect to the size of 374 square meters for H 374 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do on November 10, 1968, on the ground of sale and purchase from the former owner F, and from the former owner G on October 4, 1963 with respect to the area of 509 square meters in size prior to I (hereinafter referred to as “number alone”).

C. Meanwhile, E large-scale 288 square meters adjacent to the above H and I land (hereinafter “instant land”) are registered as F. The part of the said land is located in part of the warehouse building, and the remainder of the said land is being used as a passage for the Plaintiff to enter the front door of the house located in H land and the land (dy field).

F Along with the death of January 15, 1979, the Defendants, as food, jointly inherited their property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The entire H and I’s land, including the Plaintiff’s land, is owned by G, all of which refer. However, in the case of the instant land and H’s land, only the name of ownership is F.

G on October 4, 1963, the entire land was donated to the Plaintiff. However, in the process of the registration of ownership transfer, only the land in this case was omitted.

The Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription on October 4, 1983, since it occupied and used the instant land with the intent to own the said land from the said donation.

B. Only the Defendants H land transferred ownership to the Plaintiff without compensation, and only the instant land was allowed to be used without compensation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s possession falls under the possession of the owner, and thus, did not meet the requirements for acquisition by prescription.

3. Determination

(a) Whether the possessor is an independent possession with the intention of possession or with the intention of possession without the intention of possession;