토지소유권확인
1. It is confirmed that the B large scale B, 383 square meters is owned by the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is registered as the owner in the land cadastre concerning B Dae-gun, Incheon po-gun, B, 383 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 2, 1965, the date of change is indicated as “the cause of change” owner’s restoration.
The land in this case is unregistered until now.
B. The cadastral level of the instant land is indicated as “C”.
C. 1) The original copy and abstract of the Plaintiff’s resident registration indicated that the Plaintiff was transferred to the instant land on November 9, 1970, and that the distance between the instant land and D was 141 meters. Residents (E, F, and G) residing near the instant land submitted a confirmation document stating that the Plaintiff was managing the instant land as the owner even after the Plaintiff was moved to D. (2) The Plaintiff paid the property tax, etc. on the instant land from around 1995 to the present date.
3) On July 25, 2018, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to H in KRW 10 million. [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 2 (including the branch number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. In order to acquire ownership of land due to the completion of the prescription for confirmation, it is necessary to make a request for ownership transfer registration against the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription that would lose ownership due to the completion of the prescription; there is no benefit to seek confirmation that there is a claim for ownership transfer or ownership transfer registration against a third party against himself/herself.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 delivered on May 9, 1995). However, in a case where the land is unregistered and there is no registered titleholder on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where the identity of the registrant is unknown, or where there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously asserting the ownership of a third party who is a registered titleholder, while denying the ownership of the third party, there is benefit in confirmation.
Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817 Decided July 25, 1995