소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts are acknowledged to the effect that there is no dispute or the entire pleadings, in addition to each macro- documentary evidence.
[Plaintiff’s land] [Defendant’s land] The Defendant is the owner of Ulsan-gun C orchard 20313 square meters (hereinafter referred to as Defendant’s land) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the DU-gun 3383 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff’s land) adjacent to the Defendant’s land.
[A 1-1, 2-1] The location and status of the original Defendant’s land are as shown below, and the remaining documents of the Defendant’s land adjoining to the North east of the Plaintiff’s land are adjacent to each other in the shape of “”.
[A 1-2, 2-2] On the other hand, part of the south part of the defendant's land was cut off and a narrow sloping road or a farm road was set up for the passage of neighboring residents. On the other hand, the road was packaged as a road that can pass by vehicles, and the defendant's land was partitioned into two lands, namely, in the shape of the right surface.
[A] As seen in the attached Form No. 4, the above farm road is merely about the upper part of the “E” forest (the inside part of the Do newsletter, which connects each point of 3 and 4 in sequence) for which the Plaintiff asserted the prescriptive acquisition against the Defendant Republic of Korea in this case.
The Plaintiff was donated to the Plaintiff’s land in 1970 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future on February 24, 1983, and used the Plaintiff’s land as fruit plants until now. As seen above, the Defendant’s land was separated from upper and lower land along the road boundary, while the remaining part of the Defendant’s land was directly connected without boundary marking or distinction from the Plaintiff’s land, and the Plaintiff occupied the Plaintiff, such as planting trees together with growing trees and cultivating agricultural storage (see, e.g., Table 1 and Statement 8). The specific part of the Defendant’s land, which the Plaintiff occupied and cultivated as orchard, is part of Section 722 square meters in the ship indicated in the annexed drawing as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant dispute part”).
[Written Expert Opinion] 2. The dispute of this case