beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 28, 1946, the Defendant purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the all-round District Court indictment on October 1, 1946.
B. On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C’s ASEAN in KRW 30,000,000.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C: (a) purchased and cultivated the instant real estate from the owner at the time of around 1960; and (b) donated the instant real estate to D around 1979; (c) around that time, D occupied the instant real estate while cultivating it from around that time; (d) received KRW 30,00,000 from the Plaintiff on December 1, 2017 and sold the instant real estate to the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate from December 1, 2017.
Inasmuch as there is no change in the owner in the certified copy of the register of the instant real estate, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on July 3, 2018 to the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of the prescription period, taking as the starting point for the acquisition by prescription the period of July 3, 1998, counting from July 3, 2018 upon receipt of the instant complaint to the Plaintiff as the starting point for the acquisition by prescription.
B. A person who asserts the acquisition by prescription shall prove his/her possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da11334, Sept. 24, 1996). The Plaintiff asserted that C has occupied the real estate in this case since the 1960s, and thereafter D has occupied the real estate in this case since 1979. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.