logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.30 2016나52172
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim that was changed alternatively in this court and the conjunctive claim that was added by this court.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers) by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 20, 1975 as to D Dae-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”), and on March 22, 1975, as to E-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. C’s death on July 9, 191, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 3, 1992 on the instant D and E’s inheritance by agreement and division.

C. On January 30, 1922, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of expropriation on June 20, 1921 with respect to B, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”). From the instant land, the instant F land included the instant dispute on April 15, 2015 was divided.

The Plaintiff owns a building without permission (hereinafter “instant unauthorized building”) on the ground of the part connected with each point of 5, 6, 12, 15, and 5 in sequence among the attached appraisal drawings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 3, 1974, C, the father of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, purchased the instant land D and E and acquired the ownership from the original owner on March 22, 1975, and occupied the instant area of the land contained in the site of the instant unauthorized building in peace and public performance as the owner’s intent. After C’s death on July 9, 1991, C succeeded to the possession of C and occupied the instant area of the land as the owner’s intent to possess the instant area of the land.

Therefore, on March 22, 1995, the acquisition by prescription for the part of the dispute of this case, which was completed after 20 years from March 22, 1975.

arrow