(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2019.08.22 2018가단56098

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2019.08.22 2018가단56098

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 9, 10, among the land size of 31 square meters in Daegu-gun roads B, Daegu-gun, and the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a literature consisting of male and female descendants, both of whom are the descendants of A.

B. On May 10, 1974, the registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of C on May 10, 1974 with respect to the land B, Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, 311 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant

C. Meanwhile, around February 26, 1957, the Plaintiff constructed a re-place of the name “D” on the ground of the instant land and thereafter possesses a portion of 282 square meters in the ship that connects each point of the attached Form No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 among the instant land from that time to that time.

[Based on Recognition] A without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), witness E's testimony, appraiser F's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around 1911 to manage the instant land under the name of “C”. Around February 26, 1957, the Plaintiff constructed a re-place of “D” on the ground of the instant land and possessed the instant dispute land from that time to that time.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on February 26, 197 or May 10, 1994, for the completion of the acquisition by prescription on May 10, 1994, “the point at which 20 years have elapsed since the construction of D” to the Plaintiff.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent. As such, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention. Rather, the possessor has the burden of proving that he/she has no intention to own, and the possessor has the burden of proving

The possession of the possessor shall be the intention of possession.

참조조문

-민법 제197조 제1항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.08.29 2018가단60264

-부산지방법원 2021.01.12 2020가단317521

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.11.27 2015가합350

-대구지방법원 2017.05.26 2016가단7675