소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant (appointed parties) and the designated parties are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 4, 1913, the networkO was under the assessment of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for a size of 149 square meters, which is unregistered land.
B. The deceased P and the deceased (Death on August 10, 1980) had children Q and net R (Death on September 24, 1987) between the deceased P and his child.
Net Q (Death on June 20, 1983) had children between the deceased S (Death on March 30, 2005) and the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) B, Selection E, I (Marriage on May 7, 1983), F, G, J, and H.
The deceased R (MR on July 14, 1997) had Defendant C, Selection, K, L, M (U), and N as his child between the deceased T (M on January 7, 2007) and the deceased.
C. The Plaintiff currently uses a building on the ground of the instant real estate as a warehouse that keeps agricultural equipment, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and images, the court's Busan Gangseo-gu Vdong, the fact inquiry results of each fact inquiry about the same Gu Wdong, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the MangO around May 1, 1971 and thereafter occupies it for 40 years or more from that time.
The Defendants, the successors of the GOO, and the designated parties, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on May 1, 1991, in preference to the Plaintiff, on the grounds of sale and purchase on May 1, 1971.
3. Determination
A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff alleged that he purchased the instant real estate from the GO around May 1, 1971, the testimony of the Plaintiff, the witness X, and Y as to the primary claim is not submitted a sales contract for the instant real estate, and there is no assertion or proof as to the number of purchase and sale proceeds, and it is difficult to believe that each statement of the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (including the serial number) alone is recognized.