[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant (Law Firm Green, Attorneys Choi Choi-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

January 24, 2008

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. On December 31, 1999, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on December 31, 1999 with respect to one fifth of the shares of 700 shares of the real estate recorded in the attached list.

3. The costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts, and one shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant, respectively.

In the first place, the defendant will implement on February 19, 2002 each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the agreement for share transfer on February 19, 2002 with respect to 70/2160 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff

Preliminary: Judgment like Paragraph (1)

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 1931, the Daejeon District Court received the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 1 on the ground of the transaction on December 28, 1931, as to ○○○○-ri (number 1 omitted) 2,160 (hereinafter referred to as the “sub-divisioned land”). The 700/2160 shares, which is part of the shares, were transferred to Nonparty 5 on April 24, 1954. On November 8, 1954, the 70/2160 shares out of Nonparty 1 shares were transferred to Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 6 shares were transferred to Nonparty 7 through Nonparty 7, and on February 12, 1958, transferred to the Defendant’s name.

B. On May 29, 1979, the land before subdivision was replaced with 1250 square meters in 00 square meters in 00 square meters in 00 square meters in 1250 square meters in 00 square meters in 00, 1220 square meters in 1220 square meters in 0 (7 omitted), 450 square meters in 450 square meters in 00, 2936 square meters in 10, 2936 square meters in 10, 423 square meters in 00 in 194 in 1,247 square meters in 1,689 square meters in 1,689 in 1,689 square meters in 1,689 in 1,689 square meters in 1,23, 1994.

C. On August 22, 1997, the above replotting and divided land were again substituted with the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Ri (hereinafter parcel number 5 omitted), 1045.9 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “land number 7 omitted) and (hereinafter referred to as the “land number 8 omitted) of the same Ri, which is the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table attached hereto, with the land listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table (hereinafter referred to as the “land number 10 omitted), and each land was substituted with the land of the same Ri, which is the land listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table (hereinafter referred to as the “land number 4 omitted), with the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1, Defendant, and Nonparty 5 with respect to the land (number 5 omitted; hereinafter referred to as the “land number 4 omitted).

D. Regarding 00 square meters in 423 square meters in paddy-ri and 1689 square meters in response to subdivision (hereinafter parcel number 2 omitted), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 1 and the Defendant (700/2160 shares). However, according to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Mar. 20, 1979), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 2, each of whom was Nonparty 5138 and 5140 on June 22, 1994, respectively.

E. Nonparty 1 died on November 20, 1958, and Nonparty 3, the wife, inherited the property of Nonparty 3, but around 1973, Nonparty 8 (Death on October 16, 2006), Nonparty 4, 9, 10, and the Plaintiff inherited the property of Nonparty 3, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 8-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the land of ○○○○○-ri, which was divided from the land before subdivision (hereinafter parcel number 9 omitted) and the land of ○○-ri (hereinafter parcel number 2 omitted), was owned by Nonparty 1 and the Defendant, the Defendant sold all of them to Nonparty 12, including Nonparty 1’s share, and as the Plaintiff knew of this, he agreed on February 19, 2002 to transfer his share among the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff on February 19, 2002, the Defendant is liable to implement

B. Determination

Each entry of the evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4, evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 10-1, 2, and evidence Nos. 12-1 to 12-3 is insufficient to deem that the Defendant agreed to transfer all of its shares among the real estate recorded in the attached list to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, as the heir of the non-party 1, occupied and cultivated the real estate listed in the attached list, together with the non-party 3 and 4. The prescription period for the acquisition of possession has expired since the period of 20 years, even if the period of possession was the starting point of 1980.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence as well as evidence Nos. 2-1 to 3, the testimony of the witness 11, and the fact-finding with the office of Young-gun Office of this court, ① 70/2160 shares transferred by the defendant with respect to the land before subdivision are 70/2160 shares purchased by the non-party 5 despite the entry on the register, ② the non-party 5 and the defendant were transferred with the share of the land before subdivision, but only 700 shares were cultivated by the non-party 1 and their successors after purchasing the part of the land before subdivision. The non-party 1 and the defendant were cultivated by the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relationship. ③ The defendant did not specify the part cultivated by himself around March 20, 197 and sold it to the non-party 2, ④ The non-party 2 did not register the transfer to the non-party 3 with respect to the remaining part of the land after purchasing the land before subdivision and the transfer registration to the non-party 2.

Therefore, the defendant's share in the land before subdivision is transferred to the non-party 2 without completing each inheritance registration and registration of transfer on the register even though the defendant had already sold to the non-party 2, and it seems that it was transferred to the register as it is, and it is difficult to view that the defendant still is the owner of the real estate listed in the

In the above process, if the non-party 4, who is the inheritor of the non-party 1, has occupied and cultivated the real estate recorded in the attached list for other inheritors, the intention of the non-party 4 or the non-party 1's heir can sufficiently be inferred.

Therefore, as long as the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 1 and Defendant continues to exist as to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet, the acquisition by prescription may be decided at will. Since the acquisition by prescription of Nonparty 3’s inheritors, including the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, was completed on December 31, 1999 after the lapse of twenty (20) years from 1980, as determined by the Plaintiff, the acquisition by prescription for possession of Nonparty 3’s inheritors, including the Plaintiff, was completed. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement to the Plaintiff the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription as to the share equivalent to the Plaintiff’s inheritance

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Demotion