207Na7421 Registration of transfer of ownership

1. Gu (42. 42.)

Daegu Northern-dong 825 - 6

2. 구ㅁㅁ ( 52 )

Daegu Northern-dong 451 -2

3. GuA (50)

Daegu Seo-dong 1483 - 21

4. 구 QQ ( 58.

Daegu Northern-dong 451

[Defendant-Appellant]

○○ Kim (41)

Daegu Seo-gu

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Daegu District Court Decision 2005Kadan135574 Decided April 12, 2007

May 1, 2008

May 29, 2008

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall be revoked with respect to the plaintiff 0, among the grounds of appeal of the 464m wide 648m wide 648m wide, Daegu-dong

With respect to the portion (c) 48 square meters inboard (c) which connects each point on April 1, 13.2.2.14.2.2.2.2.14.2:

On March 1, 1993, the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of the statute of limitations for possession shall be implemented, and the plaintiff Gu

□□, 구AA, 구♤♤에게 별지 도면 표시 3. 4. 5. 6. 15. 3. 의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선

On March 15, 1995, the transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for acquisition of possession on March 15, 1995

D. The registration procedures will be completed.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 7, 1965, the plaintiff Kuo-dong purchased a square of the 465 Ma129 m3, Daegu Northern-dong on February 7, 1965, and the plaintiff Kuo-dong purchased a square of the 129m.

23. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in its name.

B. On March 1, 1973, the Plaintiff 00 newly constructed a building with a total floor area of 49.7 square meters on the said land, and occupied and used the instant land (c) land on the ground of the instant case (c) land located on the ground of 464 square meters and 648 square meters adjacent to Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, 464 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”).

C. Meanwhile, on August 20, 1965, the non-party, who is the supervisor of the Gu office of the Gu office, the Gu office of the plaintiff, the Gu office of the non-party, purchased a square meter of 451 - 2 - 539 meters wide, Daegu Northern-gu, the Gu office of the non-party. The non-party newly built the mentor block block rooftop floor on the ground around 1975.

D. The above old house is newly constructed and indicated in the annexed drawing among the real estate of this case. 3.4.

5. On June 15, 195, a fence was installed in the ship (L), which connects each point to each point on the order on June 3, 198, and used the land of this case ( L) as the marina of the above single-story house.

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 10, 1965, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff et al. and three other persons on December 10, 1965, and on June 22, 1990, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff solely based on the plaintiff's full co-ownership from

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the on-site inspection conducted by the court of the first instance, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the first instance appraiser Kim Tae-kick

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Plaintiffs’ assertion (1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

원고 구00은 이 사건 청구원인으로 1973. 3. 1. 원고 구00의 부인 소외 구VV의 명의로 대구 북구 구암동 465 대 129m² 지상에 건물을 신축하면서 이 사건 부동산 중 이 사건 ( ㄷ ) 토지가 위 구암동 465 토지에 포함된 것으로 알고 이 사건 ( ㄷ ) 토지에 돼지막사를 건물과 연결하여 짓고 이를 점유 · 사용하기 시작하였고, 현재도 이 사건 ( ㄷ ) 토지를 소외 이OO에게 임대하는 등 1973. 3. 1. 부터 20년 이상 소유의 의사로 평온 · 공연하게 점유함으로써 점유취득시효가 완성되었으므로 이 사건 ( ㄷ ) 토지의 소유자인 피고는 원고 구00에게 이 사건 ( ㄷ ) 토지에 관하여 1993. 3. 1. 점유취득시효완성을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다고 주장한다 . ( 2 ) 원고 구ㅁㅁ, 구△△, 구 의 주장

원고 구□□, 구AA, 구는 이 사건 청구원인으로 그 조부인 소외 구조가 이 사건 부동산에 인접한 대구 북구 구정동 451 - 2 대 539m²를 매수하여 1975. 3. 15. 경그 지상에 세멘블록조 스레트 지붕 단층주택 46. 25m²를 신축함에 있어 이 사건 부동산 중 이 사건 ( L ) 토지가 위 구암동 451 - 2 토지에 포함된 것으로 알고 담장을 설치하고 나무를 식재하고 신축건물의 마당으로 사용하기 시작한 이래 위 구소의 상속인들인 위 원고들이 계속하여 이 사건 ( L ) 토지에 대한 점유를 계속해 오고 있으므로 위 구소가 소유의 의사로 평온 · 공연하게 점유하기 시작한 1975. 3. 15. 부터 20년 이 경과함으로써 점유취득시효가 완성되었고, 따라서 이 사건 ( L ) 토지의 소유자인 피고는 원고 구□□, 구스A, 구QQ에게 이 사건 ( L ) 토지에 관하여 1995. 3. 15. 점유취득시효완성을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다고 주장한다 .

B. Determination

(1) It is reasonable to view that an error in the construction of a building on one’s own premises, which did not accurately verify the boundary line of the adjoining land and so long as it was caused by an error, it cannot be readily concluded that the occupancy of the adjoining land is not based on the intention of ownership. However, a person who intends to newly construct a building on one’s own premises generally confirms the location and area of the site by drawing, etc., of the part of the building site and goes further to the construction. Thus, if the area of the building exceeds the degree of the error in the construction ordinarily acceptable, and exceeds the extent of considerable amount, the owner of the building is aware at the time of the construction that the building was invaded by the adjoining land. Therefore, the occupancy of the adjoining land due to such invasion cannot be deemed to have an intention to own the adjoining land in light of the nature of its title, and a person who seeks to purchase and sell the building site in excess of 97Da4297, Apr. 29, 209).

(2) First, as to the plaintiff 00's assertion, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff 00 had confirmed in advance the purchase object or the building site location or area of the building site on the ground at the time of purchase of a square registry of about 465 to 129 meters of the above Daegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, or the building on the ground. As seen earlier, the size of the land purchased by the plaintiff 00 is about 129 meters of the size of the land purchased by the plaintiff 00, but it is about 37% of the size of the land purchased by the plaintiff 48 meters of the size of the new building, the size of the land is 49.7 meters of the size of the new building, the size of the new building is stuffed to a degree similar to that of the square registry of about 49.7 meters of the size of the new building. If the purchase of the old 00 meters is combined, the land purchased by the plaintiff 00 is relatively a s

In light of the following facts: (a) it is reasonable to view that the land affected by this ○ is similar to a rectangular type; and (b) if such land is included, the land occupied by the Gu ○○ is similar to a rectangular type or a rectangular type, which is relatively visible to a relatively long way; (c) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff ○ was aware that the land was not owned by the instant (c) land, in the course of breaking the instant (c) land, in which the Plaintiff ○ was deprived of the ownership of the instant land; and (d) the Plaintiff ○ does not assert and prove any special circumstance that it believed that the land he purchased was included in the said land. Accordingly, the Plaintiff 00’s possession of the land in this case (c) is deemed to be the possession by the nature of the title.

( 3 ) 다음으로 원고 구□□, 구AA, 구 의 주장에 관하여 살피건대, 원고들의 조부인 위 구 는 대구 북구 구정동 451 - 2 대 539m²을 매수할 당시나 그 지상에 건물을 건축하면서 매매대상인 토지 또는 신축할 건물이 자리를 잡을 부지의 위치. 면적을 지적공부 등을 통하여 미리 확인하였다고 봄이 상당하다고 할 것인데, 제1심 법원의 현장검증결과, 제1심 감정인 김태곤의 측량감정결과에 의하면 위 구소 소유였던 구정동 451 - 2 토지는 이 사건 부동산과 접해있으나, 그 모양이 직선이 아니고, 움푹 들어간 형태인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 여기에다 앞서 본 바와 같이 구○○가 담장을 설치하고 신축건물의 마당으로 사용하면서 원고 소유의 인접 토지의 면적이 80m²에 달하는 점 등을 보태어 보면, 위 구조는 이 사건 ( L ) 토지를 침범하여 담장을 설치함에 있어 이 사건 ( L ) 토지가 자신의 소유가 아님을 알고 있었다고 봄이 상당하고 사정이 이러하다면 원고들로서는 구소가 매수한 토지에 위와 같이 침범한 토지가 포함되었다고 믿을 만한 특별한 사정에 대한 주장, 입증이 있어야 할 것이다 ), 따라서 위 구 의 이 사건 ( L ) 토지에 대한 점유는 그 권원의 성질상 타주점유라고 할 것이다 .

(4) Accordingly, the plaintiffs' above assertion on the premise that the possession of the land of this case (c) and ( L) is frequently attributable to the plaintiff's 00 and the above Gu's above possession is not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so dismissed.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Lee Young-chul

Judges Yang Yang-jin

A person shall be appointed.