beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 23, 200, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 1869/2347 shares among D-A road 2,347 square meters, C road 1,004 square meters and B road 159 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) due to inheritance by agreement division.
B. On October 31, 1939, the land before the instant subdivision was designated as a land rearrangement zone for land subdivision Nos. 3 and 2 as part of the “G Construction Plan” formulated by the Joseon General Department in 1938, which was established in the Japanese colonial Rule in 1938, the Japanese colonial Order No. 4,445 (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”). As such, the land before the instant subdivision was designated as a land rearrangement zone for land subdivision No. 3 and 2 as of the market price planning.
C. After that, on January 15, 1940, the above business plan was revised and announced again in approximately KRW 500,000, including the land before the division, except for Franchis as I, the Joseon General Announcement, and obtained the authorization of the completion from the Maritime General Government on May 5, 194.
Each land of this case was divided from the land before the division of this case on December 17, 194, and each land category was changed to a road, and thereafter, it was provided to the general public as a road site from around that time.
The Defendant has been managing the roads established on each of the instant lands from October 1, 1961, when the enforcement of the former Act on Temporary Measures for Local Autonomy (repealed by Act No. 4004, Apr. 6, 1988) was made.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 10 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 12, each of the statements (including each of the numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is equivalent to the land charges already incurred from October 7, 201 to June 30, 2017, as sought by the Plaintiff, from October 1, 1961, commencing the Defendant’s occupation of each of the instant land, to the Plaintiff who acquired all or part of the instant land on January 23, 200.