소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgment to the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition which the plaintiff selectively added at the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff occupied shares 1/2 and 2 of the land in the first place from June 1990 to June 20 years, and there was no fact that the Defendant occupied each of the said land.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to complete the registration of transfer of ownership on each of the above land by reason of the prescriptive acquisition.
B. 1) The Incorporated Foundation D completed each registration of ownership transfer on June 29, 1965 for each of the instant lands. 2) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against D on each of the instant lands to seek the registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 1995 due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription on December 31, 1995, against D, which was rendered a favorable judgment on October 30, 2015 (the Jeonju District Court 2013Da47653), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
3) The Defendant completed each registration of the transfer of ownership on January 12, 2016 on each of the instant lands on the grounds of the prescriptive acquisition dated December 31, 1995. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the fact that it is obvious to this court.]
C. The determination real estate registration itself is presumed to have a legitimate cause for registration, i.e., the right or legal relationship indicated by the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997). According to the above fact-finding, the Defendant is presumed to possess each of the instant land and the prescriptive acquisition on December 31, 1995 is presumed to have been completed. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to reverse the presumption and the Defendant did not occupy each of the instant land.
or owned by the Plaintiff.