logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.04.10 2017가단2357
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant is based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on March 14, 1999, with respect to the land of 198 square meters in ancient Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On August 31, 1981, the Defendant’s husband D completed the ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094) on January 5, 1974 (hereinafter “each registration of ownership in the name of Defendant F”).

On November 11, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division from the network D on May 19, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a branch number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 7 as to the ground for a claim as a whole of the pleadings, Eul sold the real estate of this case to G on July 9, 1972, and the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from G on March 14, 1979 and continued to occupy the real estate of this case from that time to that time.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is presumed to have occupied the instant real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of possession for at least 20 years. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the transfer registration on March 14, 1999 for the completion of the prescriptive acquisition as to the instant real estate on March 14, 199, after the lapse of 20 years from March 14, 1979.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on March 14, 199 with respect to the instant real estate on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

The Defendant’s husband, who is the Defendant’s husband, purchased He (hereinafter “the nearby real estate of this case”) in the Go Chang-gun, Go Chang-gun, which is not the instant real estate, and misleads the Defendant into “C” the place where the land subject to sale is sold or sold under the sales contract, i.e., the place where the land

arrow