beta
Text
1. The defendant, on the part of the plaintiff, has sold B miscellaneous land 582 square meters to the plaintiff, the Goyang-gu Seoul District Court, Goyang-gu registry office 199.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition: (a) The land research division drafted during the Japanese colonial rule include the Gyeonggi-gun Co., Ltd.’s response 310 square meters as the network E with the address in Gyeonggi-gun D (which does not include the numbers and numbers in the above address); and (b) on April 1, 1914, the above “Ssung Fdong D” was changed into the name of “Ssung Fdong.”
② As to the B miscellaneous land divided into the above C field (hereinafter “instant land”), registration of preservation of ownership was made in the Defendant’s future on May 6, 1999 as the receipt of No. 20889, May 6, 1999.
③ On the other hand, H (H and I) whose permanent domicile in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G died on October 30, 1928, and his children succeeded to Australia. The J died on October 16, 1963, and his children, including the wife and the Plaintiff, were jointly inherited.
[Groundd] Facts without any dispute, described in Gap evidence 1 through 5, fact-finding reply to the Seoul Jongno-gu Office, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In the absence of counter-proof such as the change in the content of the land survey by the adjudication, the person who was registered as the owner of the land shall be presumed to be the owner of the land and the circumstance thereof shall be presumed to have been determined. The presumption of preservation of ownership shall be reversed if it is found that a person other than the title holder of the preservation registration was given the situation of the land in question. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the title holder of the land prior to the division of the land in this case and the Plaintiff’s prior title H as the “Fdong” are the same as the title holder’s address, and that there
Therefore, the presumption of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant was reversed as to the land of this case, and the land of this case is owned jointly by H inheritors including the plaintiff.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.