beta
Text
1. The defendant shall list each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s referred to as “Plaintiff”) died on April 19, 2013, and there were appointed parties C and their children, and Plaintiff A (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiff, etc.”) who are their successors, and the inheritance shares of Plaintiff, etc. are listed in the attached Table 3.
B. The Defendant (formerly: Large Agriculture Industry Co., Ltd.) completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 5, 1981 with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. On February 28, 1992, the Daejeon District Court sentenced G to the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust on November 29, 191, with respect to the land of this case (the area of this case is larger than the land of this case, and the land of this case seems to include the land of this case), the defendant sentenced H to the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the sale on January 17, 1985, and the above H to the B for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 10, 198, and the appeal by the defendant et al. was dismissed (Seoul High Court 92Na22864).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings
2. In light of the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim and each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it is reasonable to view that the statute of limitations for acquiring the land of this case was completed on February 26, 1990, at the time of the plaintiff's assertion, since December 10, 198, that the deceased occupied the land of this case continuously for not less than 20 years from February 26, 1990, when the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from H, and that the possession was presumed to have been conducted in peace and openly with the intention of possession (Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act).
Therefore, the defendant is the plaintiff et al. who is the heir of B, and attached Form 3.