beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant B, I, J, K, and L shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's defendant B, I, J, K, and L.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this part of this court are as follows. The part of "MaV (Death on September 28, 1948)" in Part 4 of Part 3 of Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "MaV (Death on October 28, 1948), part of part 4, "Defendant AC" in Part 10, "AE" in Part 4, "L" in Part 13, "No. 26, 1979" in Part 4, "No. 25," in Part 5, "No. 1," and the part of Part 5, "No. 25," in Part 1, "No. 5," was used as "No. 2014," and the part of Part 5, "No. 10, the plaintiff applied for a provisional disposition against Defendant B on April 2014, and No. 25, the court of first instance against the above provisional disposition No. 2014.
"Except for the addition of the part in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the statement of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance."
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s gift of the instant land No. 1 to the Plaintiff and the instant land No. 2 to Samnam-W, respectively. After the Plaintiff’s death, the deceased’s wife and the deceased’s wife were to have managed the instant land No. 2.
On September 25, 1975, the deceased X sold the land of this case to the deceased AD and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case 1 by mistake. Thus, the registration of ownership transfer completed under the name of the deceased AD is the registration of invalidity of the cause.
Meanwhile, since the Plaintiff donated the instant land No. 1 to the present time and possessed it in peace and openly with the intention to own it up to the present day, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the statute of limitations for possession acquisition in relation to Defendant 2 through 7, 12 through 17 (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”) as the heir of the network X regarding the instant land No. 1.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership under Defendant B’s name on the land of this case by subrogation of Defendant C, etc., and Defendant I, J, K, L, and B, the heir of the network AD.