logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.12 2018나47006
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s claim that managed dry field and orchard owned by the Plaintiff and the instant real estate, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use part of the instant real estate from the Defendant before the completion of the prescription period, and paid rent to the Defendant, and the land was occupied and used, the prescription period for the Plaintiff’s possession was suspended or the Plaintiff’s possession was converted into the possession

In addition, the Plaintiff and I renounced the benefit of the completion of the prescription, as they concluded a State property loan agreement with the Defendant on the part of the instant real estate after the completion of the prescription period for the Plaintiff’s possession.

B. 1) From around 200 to around 207, I, who leased the dry field owned by the Plaintiff and the orchard site, etc., owned by the Plaintiff, issued a certificate of permission to occupy and use part of the instant land from the Defendant. From around that time to around 2007, the Plaintiff paid the aggregate of KRW 137,180 for road occupation and use fees imposed by the Defendant on the said land. The Plaintiff paid the aggregate of KRW 149,930 for road occupation and use fees imposed by the Defendant from around 2008 to around 2010, may be recognized by the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: (i) the Plaintiff leased the instant land from the Plaintiff; and (ii) the Plaintiff applied for permission to occupy and use the instant land or paid the road usage fees before the completion of the prescription period.

arrow