beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. As to the site of this case, on April 1942, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the State (U.S.). On September 11, 1948, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on January 25, 1985.
B. On January 23, 1965, C began to possess the instant site by constructing and owning 12 houses on the instant site. After doing so, C occupied the instant site in the order of D, E, and F while possessing the said building in the order of D, E, and F, G purchased the said building from F on April 9, 1974 and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the building on April 10, 1974.
C. On May 26, 197, G donated a building to Dong Jae-in, Dong Jae-in, H occupied the instant site and died on February 18, 1998.
From that time, the Plaintiff, as H’s son, occupied the building and the instant site from that time to that time, and on December 27, 199, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of donation on May 26, 197.
However, the above H acknowledged that he occupied the instant site from October 20, 1971, when he occupied the instant site as above, and requested the Defendant to verify that the instant site was state property owned by the Defendant and to conclude a loan contract, and requested the Defendant to postpone the time limit for payment of indemnity due to illegal occupation until the time of concluding a loan contract. On May 31, 1994, the above H paid KRW 2,280,600 for one time out of indemnity without any objection.
E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the registration of ownership transfer on the instant site as Seoul District Court Branch Branching 2000Kadan14556, which caused the completion of prescriptive acquisition. However, as above, H requested a loan agreement for state property and paid once out of indemnity on May 31, 1994, was sentenced against the judgment against the Defendant on July 4, 200 on the ground that the fact that the compensation was paid once constitutes the waiver of prescriptive profit, and the Plaintiff’s judgment against the Seoul District Court is subject to the judgment.