지상물철거 등
1. All appeals against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The appeal costs.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the court added "each description or image of evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8" in the fourth 4-5 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "each description or image of evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, and 25" and "2. Additional decision" as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. In calculating the period of prescriptive acquisition, if there is a change in the owner of the real estate in question during the period of possession, the claimant for the prescriptive acquisition cannot assert the completion of prescription on the ground that the claimant has chosen the starting point at his discretion or occupied it for at least twenty years retroactively.
In such a case, the court shall recognize the commencement time of real possession as recognized by the litigation data without asking the party's assertion, and determine the legitimacy of the claim for the acquisition by prescription based on it.
In addition, even if the prescription period for acquisition by possession has expired, in cases where a third party completes the registration of transfer of ownership on the relevant real estate between the parties who did not make a registration accordingly, the third party is not a party to the registration of transfer due to the completion of the prescription period for acquisition by possession, and thus, the possessor cannot assert the effect of the completion of the prescription period and oppose the third party.
나. 판단 1) 앞서 본 법리에 따라 살피건대, 피고는 1996. 1. 12.을 기산점으로 특정하여 위 시점부터 20년 이상 이 사건 토지 중 반소 청구취지 기재 ㈎부분 757㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 ㈎부분’이라 한다
Although the defendant asserted that he occupied the land of this case on August 13, 2009 during the possession period claimed by the defendant, since the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case and changed the owner of the land, the defendant arbitrarily selected the starting point at the point of time or from now.