2016Na58024 Registration of transfer of ownership

A

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da5282 Decided April 21, 2016

September 30, 2016

November 4, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant shall revoke the plaintiff's appraisal among the attached Table 11, 10, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 11 shown in the attached Table No. 11, 30, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 615 square meters of land B (hereinafter referred to as "B forest") and the above B forest land No. 22,23, 6, 7, 24, 25, 26, 13, and 22, "C land" (hereinafter referred to as "C land"). The defendant changed the ownership registration of the forest and field to the plaintiff's ownership registration of the land before the execution of the registration procedure and the registration of transfer of the ownership of the plaintiff's.

1. Basic facts

This Court's reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the process of owning and occupying D forest, the Plaintiff believed that the portion of possession of each of the above lands belongs to D forest due to mistake as to the fact that the boundary between B forest and land C is not accurately verified, and that the said portion of possession of the forest belongs to D forest. The Plaintiff et al. installed a grave and directly occupied C land by the Plaintiff et al., and the Plaintiff et al. newly constructed a new house and let G et al. use the land without compensation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff et al. completed the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of each of the above lands on October 30, 201 after the lapse of 20 years from October 30, 1981 by inheritance of D forest from E. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to the portion of possession of each of the above lands.

B. Determination

First, as to whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition of forest land B by prescription has been completed, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the forest land B is adjacent to the forest land D by the overall purport of the pleadings. However, in light of the fact that the part of the forest land occupation B is a square village of 187 meters in a rectangular form, and that the boundary with the D forest is not particularly ambiguous, it is difficult to view that such fact alone alone is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff occupied the forest land B by deeming that the part of the forest land occupation belongs to the forest land D by mistake as the part of the forest land owned by the Plaintiff and there is no

Next, as to whether the prescription period for the Plaintiff’s possession of the land has expired, it is reasonable to view that H occupies the portion of land occupation by owning a house as seen earlier, since F, around 1950, newly constructing a house and residing in G and residing in H, as to the part of land possession, it is reasonable to deem that H occupies the portion of land possession by owning a house. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff indirectly occupies the portion of land possession by allowing H to use the land of a house free of charge.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Chief Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Soh-hee

Judges Park Sang-hoon