logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.03.31 2014가단8004
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

A. Of the area of 400 square meters in Bocheon-si, the attached Form 1 Map No. 8, 9, 10, 10.

Reasons

1. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 24, 1980 with respect to the land of 400 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) in order to Defendant, Daejeon District Court Boan-si, Daejeon District Court’s Boan-si, which was received on October 28, 1980, on the ground of “sale on October 24, 1980,” and the Plaintiff’s land of 122 square meters in order to connect each point of 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 8 of the attached drawing No. 1 among the Defendant’s land for at least 20 years from July 15, 1989 to that of 20 years from that of July 15, 1989, and the land of 122 square meters in possession is called “the instant land”.

A) The Plaintiff owned the land and buildings of this case from D on July 15, 1989, and occupied the land and buildings of this case in peace and openly and openly with its intention until 20 years have elapsed since the Plaintiff acquired them from D on its own as well as the land and buildings of this case, and the acquisition by prescription was completed on July 15, 2009 as to the part of item (a) of item (a) of the Defendant’s land connected in sequence 162 square meters, including the land of this case and the summary thereof, in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of completion of the prescriptive acquisition with respect to the above 162 square meters of land including the instant land and its summary.

2. The Plaintiff purchased only the instant building from D on July 15, 1989, and occupied and used the instant land until now, but this cannot be deemed as possession with bad faith. Thus, the acquisition by prescription cannot be said to have been completed. Rather, the Defendant’s ownership of the instant land was hindered due to the instant building owned by the Plaintiff.

arrow