beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court should explain, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the defendant to the argument that the court added or emphasized in particular, 'the additional judgment' as to the argument that the defendant added or emphasized, and thus, citing it as it is
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (1) as of November 19, 1978, asserting that the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with E on the instant land and buildings on the land, E was alive by the deceased’s son E, the owner on the registry as of November 19, 1978, and E was not a legitimate heir of C.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and buildings from E without legitimate disposal authority, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that there was no legal act or other legal requirements that could cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of commencing the possession of the instant land and buildings on the ground.
② According to the registry of the instant land, G can verify the fact that he completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 14, 198 on the instant land based on the sales contract on July 8, 1974. In light of the fact that G raised an objection against the Plaintiff’s possession or concluded a lease contract with the Plaintiff, it is difficult to believe that it occupied the instant land and its ground building from around 1978.
B. (1) Unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that the person who purchased real estate as to the assertion and possessed it becomes invalid, the person who acquired it shall be deemed to possess it at the beginning of the possession, barring special circumstances such as the fact that the sale becomes invalid, and even if it was found that the sale was invalid for the reason that the seller did not have the right to dispose of it later, such possession does not change
Supreme Court Decision 95Da40328 delivered on May 28, 1996, etc.