logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원상주지원 2016.01.13 2015가단310
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Defendants indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, out of the 1,187 square meters Jacheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On April 16, 1985, Non-party deceased K (Death around November 1992) (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is a party’s status and Non-party deceased Dongcheon-gun J. 1187 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) The Defendants are the successors of K, and their respective inheritance shares are 1/7.

B. On July 2014, the Plaintiff, such as partial purchase and possession, etc. of the instant real estate, purchased part of 302 square meters inboard (B) and 479 square meters (hereinafter “L land”) located adjacent to the Plaintiff’s instant real estate, which are connected in sequence with the respective points of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,7,8, 9, 10, and 10, from the I, from among the instant real estate, and possessed it from around that time to the date of closing argument of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 11, Eul evidence No. 2, appraiser M's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On July 2014, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the ownership transfer registration for the portion in possession of this case against I, since the Plaintiff purchased the portion in possession of this case from I. Thus, the Plaintiff shall have the right to claim the ownership transfer registration with respect to the portion in possession of this case.

B. In full view of the above evidence, the existence of subrogation claim (I's right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the prescription period against the defendants) 1) the continuation of possession and the starting point of the acquisition by prescription, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 13 as well as the video, witness N, andO's testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: ① the occupied part and L land in this case are adjacent to each other, there is no particular natural boundary between them, and buildings are constructed on both sides; ② The real estate in this case was naturally bordered between the occupied part and the remaining parts since about 40 years ago; ③ the occupied part in this case and the land in this case from N on March 1, 1983.

arrow