logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나909
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this part of the facts are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On or before September 23, 1974, U.S., the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion, purchased all the remaining shares after subtracting one’s own shares from the other co-owners, including Q, in the instant land.

U was a rice farmer while occupying the instant land from September 23, 1974, and after U died on February 4, 1984, U succeeded to possession by his father, who was his father, and continued to occupy the instant land until his death on October 13, 2002.

The prescriptive prescription of V on the instant land was completed on September 23, 1994, and the Plaintiff independently succeeded to the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the statute of limitations for possession against the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the statute of limitations for possession.

B. Determination 1) Article 245(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A person who occupies real estate in peace and openly with the intention to own it for twenty years shall acquire ownership by filing for registration.” Article 197(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A possessor shall be presumed to have occupied it in good faith, peace and openly with his own will.” In addition, Article 198 of the Civil Act provides that “When he had occupied it in good faith and in good faith, he shall be presumed to have continued possession.” 2) U.S. and V’s witness testimony in the first instance trial as to whether he or she occupied the instant land for twenty (20) years, it is recognized that U and his family occupied the instant land from September 23, 1974 to a rice shed.”

Even September 23, 1994, when 20 years have elapsed since the commencement of the above possession, U.S. still remains.

arrow