beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. In the first place of the plaintiffs' assertion, the plaintiff B, who was a farmer, has occupied the entire real estate of this case in peace and openly with his intention to own it for not less than 20 years, and the possessor is presumed to have occupied it in good faith, peace, and public performance with his intention to own it. Since the defendant acquired ownership pursuant to Article 245(1) of the Civil Code, it is necessary to implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the completion of the acquisition by prescription
Preliminaryly, according to the confirmation letter of agreement and each confirmation document (Evidence A No. 4-1, 2, and 3), there is room to view that the plaintiffs occupied each of 1/4 shares of the real estate of this case as their own intent. Thus, the defendant should implement each registration procedure for ownership transfer on each of 1/4 shares of the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs.
2. Issues and judgments
A. The key claim and the conjunctive claim are all the reason for the independent possession of the real estate of this case, so it is first determined whether or not the plaintiffs' possession can be viewed as an independent possession.
B. In the judgment of the court below, the issue of whether the possessor’s possession of real estate is the possession with intention of possession or with intention of possession without intention of possession is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that is the cause of the acquisition of possession or all circumstances related to the possession, it should be determined externally and objectively. As such, the fact that the possessor acquired the possession on the basis of the title that appears to have no intention of ownership due to its nature, or the objective circumstance that the possessor cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intention of exercising exclusive control such as his own property by excluding the ownership of another person, that is, the real owner, if the possessor is the owner.