소유권이전등기말소등기
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for implementation shall be revoked and that part shall be revoked.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation as to this case are as follows: "The acquisition by prescription" under Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "The acquisition by prescription or the land specified in Section 1 of the attached Table among the land above shall be from November 3, 1993 for which the ownership transfer registration has been made; with respect to the land specified in Section 2 of the attached list, the ownership transfer registration shall be held for at least 10 years from December 21, 1994 for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made; "the acquisition by prescription is recognized" under Section 17 shall be deemed as "the acquisition by prescription by prescription by possession shall be held for at least 10 years from December 21, 1994 for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made; and "the acquisition by prescription" under Sections 12 and 26 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "the acquisition by prescription is not sufficient only on the basis of the fact inquiry results on the lower market of this court;" under Sections 8 through 1111, 2.
2. (A) In order to complete the statute of limitations for the acquisition of the registry under Article 245(2) of the Civil Act as to the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of the registry, there is no negligence in the commencement of the possession, and the burden of proof is required for the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12704, Jun. 23, 2005). Meanwhile, if the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures is made by a false or forged certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation, the possession of the person holding the title to the registration of the pertinent real estate is bound to be by negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da50578, Apr. 9, 196; 80Da1341, Jun. 9, 1981). As seen earlier, since the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant with respect to the instant land was completed by a forged certificate of guarantee, it shall be deemed that the Defendant occupied without negligence.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.