beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 의성지원 2018.02.21 2016가단1047

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendants are on August 6, 2007 with respect to the pertinent shares indicated in the attached Table among the area of 488 square meters in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-do.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. An AI completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant land”) on July 13, 1920 and died on April 7, 1998 while it owned the instant land. The Defendants, their descendants, are sharing the said land according to the statutory inheritance as indicated in the attached Table.

B. From around 1973, the Plaintiff, the spouse, and the AJ had cultivated barley, etc. on the instant land before this day, and died on August 6, 1987, and the Plaintiff continuously occupied and cultivated the said land even after that day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 7, 13, 14, 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the cause of the claim, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own will (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). In calculating the period of prescriptive acquisition, the starting date of the commencement of the possession is not the choice at will, but if there is no change to the actual owner (registered person), the starting date of the commencement of the possession is sufficient when the lapse of the period can be viewed as the time when the actual

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Da8104 delivered on July 26, 1991, and 97Da44089 delivered on April 14, 1998, etc.). According to the above facts, it appears that the period during which the Plaintiff occupied the instant land was more than 20 years from around 1973, and there was no change in the registered titleholder with respect to the said land, and the said possession is presumed to have been of peace and public performance with the intent to own the said land. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s acquisition by prescription for the instant land had already been completed.

Therefore, the Defendants, who succeeded to the property of AI of the instant registered titleholder, claimed on April 20, 1987 or August 6, 2007 as the date of prescription acquisition as sought by the Plaintiff after the lapse of 20 years from around 1973 to 20 years from the date of the instant land.

On August 6, 2007, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the prescriptive acquisition.