소유권이전등기
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 reasoning of the judgment of this court admitting the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or addition of the Defendants’ assertion made again by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A corrected or added portion;
A. 1) The amended part 1) 1) The evidence of “1. Acknowledgement” added “a fact-finding without any dispute, and the result of the fact-finding on AB face of this Court in the event of the industrialization.” 2) The 3rd 15th 15th 19 of the judgment of the first instance “1. 20th 1979” and the 4th 6th 6th m “B 10th 1987. 7. 10th 1981”, respectively;
3) Each of the 7th, 7, 8, 9, and 10 acts in the judgment of the court of first instance added “to a public performance at normal temperature” next to “the intention of possession. 4) The 7th, 11 acts in the judgment of first instance, “the completion of the registration of ownership transfer,” shall be deemed “the commencement of possession after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer.”
B. Further determination 1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the possession of the Plaintiff’s land in this case is presumed to have been possessed as the owner’s intention, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s possession of the object is presumed to have been possessed as the owner of the land under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, and the possessor does not bear the responsibility to prove his own intention in the case of claiming the acquisition of acquisition by prescription, and rather, the Plaintiff’s possession of the land in this case was denied by asserting that there was no intention to possess the land in this case, and that there was no intention to possess the land in this case. In light of the fact that the size of the land in this case and the land in the Plaintiff’s name was different from that of the land in this case at the time of the Plaintiff’s commencement of possession of the land in this case, the Plaintiff occupied the land in this case without permission.