beta
(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.07.22 2014가단3650

소유권이전등기 등

Text

1. Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant G, and Defendant B, with respect to the size of 192 square meters between Gyeong-gun and Gyeong-gun.

Reasons

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. 1) The instant land is deemed as 192 square meters, both of which were J 192 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

A) On September 30, 1912, K (L) entered into the former land cadastre as an acquisition of ownership on September 30, 1912, and the address of K is not written and is currently unregistered. The heir of M (N) is currently unregistered. The heir’s share of inheritance as Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant G, Defendant B, Defendant H, and Defendant I are as shown in the attached sheet.

3) O resided in the instant land and the instant 645 square meters, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on the P land on April 16, 1994. On March 13, 2003, Q sold the said two land to the Plaintiff’s husband Q and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to P land. Thereafter, Q occupied the instant land and P land, and died on June 25, 2010, and thereafter the Plaintiff occupied the said two land. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff is occupying the said two land. [The grounds for recognition] evidence Nos. 1 through 14, A1, and 2 (each entry, video, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including additional numbers), it is reasonable to view K (L), the owner of the land of this case, and the fleet M (N) of the above Defendants as the same person, in addition to defendant C, defendant D, defendant E, defendant F, defendant G, defendant G, defendant B, defendant H, defendant H, and defendant I, before the fleet M (N) was transferred, the address and permanent domicile of this case are the same as the lot number of the land of this case, and Eul was born from the land of this case on March 6, 1923. In light of this, it is reasonable to view that K (L) the owner of the land of this case and the fleet M (N) of the above Defendants as the same person.

Therefore, the instant land was owned by MN, the fleet of the said Defendants, and was inherited to the said Defendants and owned by each inheritance share indicated in the separate sheet. The instant land was acquired by prescription on April 16, 201, and was based on the prescriptive acquisition against the said Defendants.