소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 25, 1971, Nonparty C newly constructed a 6-story building of reinforced concrete building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Da large 157.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 7, 1993, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land No. 1 and building, and on May 19, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu E-type 11.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land No. 2”) adjacent to the instant land.
Belgium Meanwhile, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of the Seoul Jongno-gu road B 249.2 square meters adjacent to the land of this case on September 14, 1979.
On August 14, 2014, the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Administrator issued a disposition to impose KRW 36,93,300 on the Plaintiff under Article 94 of the former Road Act on the ground that the stairs of the instant building are occupied without permission on the ground that the parts of the stairs of the instant building are connected in sequence with each point of 4, 6, 7, 8, and 4 in the attached drawings (hereinafter “instant land”). < Amended by Act No. 9463, Jul. 1, 2009>
Applicant The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the aforementioned disposition on September 3, 2014. However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the disposition of imposing indemnity for a period from July 1, 2009 to August 13, 2009 among the instant disposition on December 22, 2014, and rendered a ruling dismissing the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposing indemnity under the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan54608, against which the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on July 8, 2016.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s title on the register was changed before the expiration of the period for prescriptive acquisition of the Plaintiff’s assertion
Even if it cannot be said that the existing state of possession has been destroyed, it can be a ground for suspending the prescriptive acquisition.