소유권이전등기
1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, among the 23 square meters in the counter B of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. C’s real estate acquisition 1) On June 4, 1979, the Defendant changed the name of the administrative district to Dong-si, Changwon-gun, Changwon-gun (after Changwon-si, Changwon-si), and on November 3, 2004, the area was reduced to 169m2 as a result of the division into the 6m2 in Changwon-si F.
hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s land”
)에 관하여 1965. 10. 4. 매매를 원인으로 하여 원고의 남편 C 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 2) C는 1979. 1. 1.경 이 사건 토지 위에 있는 기존 주택(초가집)을 철거하고 블록조 스라브지� 주택 1층 49.59㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 주택’이라 한다)를 신축하였다.
C completed on July 7, 1981 registration of initial ownership relating to the housing of this case.
B. The Plaintiff’s real estate acquisition 1) C died around July 26, 1988. 2) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on May 24, 1995 due to sale and purchase on April 1, 1984.
3) On March 11, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by inheritance on July 26, 198 with respect to the instant housing. (c) The Korea Asset Management Corporation, which is the Defendant’s property management authority, notified the Plaintiff of prior notice of State property and guidance to enter into a loan agreement on March 26, 2018.
The content was that the Plaintiff occupied B of the window B of Chang-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”), which is owned by the Defendant, imposed KRW 686,280 and concluded a loan agreement for the past five years.
2) The Defendant requested the Korea Land Information Corporation to conduct a cadastral survey to verify the part possessed by the Plaintiff among the Defendant’s land in this case. As a result, the part (a) part (b) of the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “the instant land”) 21 square meters in sequence connected each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 1 among the Defendant’s land in this case.
The plaintiff occupied the plaintiff (the fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, the entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7, and arguments.