소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion D around 1950: (a) purchased a river of 819 square meters (which was divided into real estate recorded in the separate sheet; (b) later, “instant land”; and (c) occupied it in a peaceful and public manner with its own intent.
At least 20 years of acquisition by possession has expired on December 30, 1977, and the defendant is obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of acquisition by prescription on December 30, 1977 to the deceased D.
(The deceased on March 6, 2016, and the designated parties succeeded to the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the land of this case according to the proportion of inheritance shares, such as the attached list). 2. The issue of this case is whether the judgment network D, for twenty (20) years from December 30, 1957, occupied the land of this case as the owner's intention to own the land of this case.
However, in light of the fact that part of the land of this case is being used as a road, it seems that another person occupies part of the land of this case, and that the network D did not register the ownership transfer even though several special measures were implemented, it is insufficient to recognize that the network D occupied the land of this case by the intention of possession from December 30, 1957 to the peace and performance of the Plaintiff’s intention from December 30, 1957, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the claim in this case is dismissed for lack of grounds.