소유권확인
1. The Defendant confirms that the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s ownership of the wife population B and 50 square meters of the answer in Chungcheongnam-si.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.
1. Basic facts
A. According to the land survey book drawn up in the Japanese occupation point period, the land survey book is written as follows: (a) the wife population C 916С and B 50С (hereinafter “instant assessment land”; and (b) the individual land is specified as a parcel number around 1911.
B. The instant assessment land is currently unregistered and is not indicated by the registrant in the land cadastre.
C. On February 15, 1928, the Plaintiff’s fleet E, who died on February 15, 1928, and the Republic of Korea F solely succeeded to it, and on May 28, 1949, the Plaintiff, who was the head, succeeded to it alone.
[Ground] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 13 as a whole, comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the assessment of the situation land in this case and the plaintiff’s prior title, Eul, the plaintiff’s address, coincide with Dong (ri). The plaintiff’s prior title E was the land located near the land in this case, it is reasonable to view that the situation in this case and Eul, the plaintiff’s prior title, are the same person.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to verify that the instant situation land owned by the Plaintiff, the heir of the title holder, barring any special circumstance.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant asserts that the land category of this case was changed as the land category was already used as a road provided for the general traffic at that time due to the restoration on March 20, 1953, and that the acquisition by prescription was completed by the defendant who occupied the land C in peace and openly with the intention to own the land for at least 20 years.
As to this, the Plaintiff did not act as a cause for acquiring ownership with knowledge that the land of this case was owned by others.