(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.02.06 2016가단50486

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.02.06 2016가단50486

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion D paid rent to F, the owner of the pertinent land, from around 1978 to around 1978, and occupied the instant land by purchasing the instant land from F from around May 1993 to performing its own intent. The Plaintiff continued possession of D with D’s heir and continued possession on May 30, 2013, and the acquisition by prescription was completed as to the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendant, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on May 30, 2013 with respect to the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the statement No. 1-1 of the judgment, the instant land was F ownership, and the inheritor inherited after the F death of July 14, 2010. On April 18, 2012, the fact that the owner was changed to the defendant due to the sale by compulsory auction on the ground of the sale by compulsory auction on April 18, 2012.

The Plaintiff asserted that the prescriptive acquisition of possession of the instant land was completed on May 30, 2013, when the Plaintiff occupied the instant land from around 1978 to around May 1993 and the owner of the instant land occupied frequently from around May 30, 2013, when the Defendant changed the Defendant. However, the testimony of the witness G alone at around 1993, when the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land at around 20 years, it is difficult to view that D purchased the instant land from F, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of the instant land was completed on May 30, 2013 is without merit.

In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, D commenced possession of the land in this case around 1978, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

As such, it is recognized that the acquisition by prescription has been completed.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.19 2018나44540 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.30 2017나60170

-서울동부지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가합100292

-서울서부지방법원 2020.11.13 2019가단246682

-전주지방법원 2017.09.26 2015가단27905