(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.05.13 2013가단8474

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.05.13 2013가단8474

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 1, 1971, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased 18,002 square meters prior to the E in Seosan City, Seosan-si, and continued to cultivate the instant land as an object of purchase.

On January 27, 1988, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate due to the reason of inheritance by agreement division.

(However, the date of receipt of the registration is July 8, 1988. The plaintiff occupied the land of this case as the intention to own it for more than 20 years after the defendant acquired the ownership. Thus, the defendant should implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the completion of acquisition by prescription as to the land of this case to the plaintiff.

2. If the nature of possessory right is not clear in the determination by prescription, the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied as his/her own intent. However, the possessor itself is liable to the Plaintiff who asserts the prescriptive acquisition.

The Plaintiff asserted from D that he occupied the instant land from the purchase of dry field around the instant land, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land from the time when the instant land was not incorporated into the road.

Examining Gap evidence No. 3 (C.), submitted by the Plaintiff, the instant land is in the form of road, and according to the overall purport of entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 4 through 7 of this case, the land was used as a road with a size of 1587 square meters in Seosan City, which includes the instant land, and is part of G, H, and I land being packed as a road around 1994, and the instant land was cancelled from the road site.

Even if the Plaintiff occupied and cultivated the instant land, it is reasonable to view that it was not when purchasing dry field from D, but when the instant land was cancelled on the road.

Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the Plaintiff purchased a dry field around the instant land from D.

유사 판례

-대법원 2015.5.28.선고 2015다202223 판결

-부산지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단23006

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.29 2018가단5252475

-대전지방법원 2020.06.18 2019나112548

-울산지방법원 2018.09.18 2017가단60354