beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant D Co., Ltd is revoked.
2. Defendant D Co., Ltd. shall be Seoul.
Reasons
1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C
A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are ① to dismiss “Defendant” as “Defendant B,” and ② to the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The fourth step of Paragraph 4 is to read “Isable” as “Isable,” and ③ except for the addition of the following, it is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment (excluding the conclusion part of Paragraph 3), thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. The original acquisition by prescription for the portion added is a system that protects a person who has continued possession for a certain period and grants him/her the rights under substantive law. As such, a person who has occupied real estate in a peaceful manner for twenty (20) years obtains the right to claim ownership transfer registration for the owner of the real estate in accordance with Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, and as long as the possessor has acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration once he/she has lost possession after the expiration of the period of acquisition, the right to claim ownership transfer registration shall not be extinguished unless it can be deemed as a waiver
In addition, since a person who succeeds to the possession of the former possessor succeeds to only the possessor and the defect, and does not succeed to the legal effect of the possession, the current possessor who succeeds to the possession of the real estate from the possessor at the time of the expiration of the acquisition period can exercise the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the former possessor in order to preserve his/her right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the former possessor, and there is no right to claim the transfer registration directly against the former
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da47745 delivered on March 28, 1995). The Plaintiff is the Defendant C.