2011da 10026 Registration of transfer of ownership

A person shall be appointed.

Kimcheon-si

1. A:

Kimcheon-si

2. B

March 8, 2012

March 29, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed.

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

1. Main claim;

The Defendants, on January 1, 1981, 1981, as to each of 1/2 shares of the 340 square meters of MaMa340 meters prior to Kimcheon-si* Ma.

26. Procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for sale and purchase;

2. First selective claims:

The Defendants, in relation to each of 1/2 shares of each of 340 square meters, shall be against the Plaintiff Kimcheon-si* in relation to each of 1/2 shares of the 340 square meters of Ma-ri.

26. He shall implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of the prescription of possession.

3. Second selective claims:

The Defendants, in relation to each of 1/2 shares of each of 340 square meters in the notice of Kimcheon-si* in the face of MaMa 340 meters before Mari, Kimcheon-si

20. He shall implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of the prescription of possession.

4. Third selective claims.

The Defendants, on August 201, 201, as to each of 1/2 shares of the following: Kimcheon-si*, Myeon MaMaMa 340 meters before MaMa Ma.

22. He shall implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of the prescription of possession.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the original network * * * * * * * on July 20, 1981 on July 7, 201 with respect to each of the Defendants 1/2 shares, respectively, on which the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 7, 201.

B. On March 31, 1952, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of USD 203 on July 30, 1981, on the ground of sale on November 21, 1965 as to the land of this case Mere Kimcheon-si* Ma 203m (hereinafter referred to as "land of 203m") and on the land of 1,289m (hereinafter referred to as "204m") due to the trade on August 21, 1965, the registration of transfer was completed in the name of KRW 1,00 on July 30, 1981, and on August 20, 1989.

26. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff currently occupies and cultivates the instant land.

D. The Defendants and the United States dollars are the children of the network *.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), part of witness testimony of $$1000, the plaintiff's questioning as a result of part of the plaintiff's question, the plaintiff's argument No. 2. The plaintiff's argument

A. The land 203, the land 204, and the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "three parcels of land") are the land which was owned by the deceased ** * * * * * * upon the death of this *** * * * 203 land, and 204 land which was in force at the time of the enforcement of this Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures Act") filed an application for registration of substantial inheritance in accordance with this procedure set forth in this Act.

B. Around November 26, 1981, the $$$$3 million was sold to the Plaintiff at KRW 3 million, and the purchase price was set off against the Plaintiff’s existing claim against the Plaintiff ***. At that time, the contract of sale and purchase and the certificate of personal seal impression, and the former certificate of registration were issued to the Plaintiff. The Defendants implicitly consented to the registration and disposal of the said three parcels of land in the name of $$3.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the above three parcels of land for about five (5) years; (b) formed the said three parcels of land as a dry field, from around 1986, and occupied and cultivated it as an orchard until now.

D. The Plaintiff purchased and cultivated the above three parcels of land, and had the intention to resell them on a fake basis due to low economic feasibility. However, the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff transfer the said three parcels of land to the Plaintiff as a tax issue, and the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant land remains in the name *** because of the mistake in the process of entering the registry in the process of requesting the registration of transfer of the said three parcels of land in the administrative document around August 1989, due to the mistake in the process of requesting the Plaintiff to transfer the registration of transfer of the said parcel of land to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the administrative document sought the written consent to demand the waiver of inheritance, but the Plaintiff did not obtain the Defendants’ written consent. However, the Plaintiff completed the registration on August 20, 198 on the instant parcel of land for which the registration was not completed, thereby causing the Plaintiff to transfer the instant land to the Plaintiff.

E. The instant land was issued by the certificate of completion of registration but the registration was omitted due to the court’s mistake, and the Plaintiff was able to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land after the Plaintiff’s finding and correcting the court together with the $$$$$$$$. However, due to the Plaintiff’s trust in the end of the $$$$$$ 10,00 that the Plaintiff would transfer the instant land with the consent of the Defendants, the instant land was now brought to the present without the aforementioned corrective procedure.

F. The Plaintiff was aware that there was the money to be received from *, regardless of its type of loan or medical expenses, and on this premise, received the previous certificate of completion of registration from $$$. On August 20, 1989, the Plaintiff entered KRW 3,405,000 as first claimed by the Plaintiff in a sales contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant case is an independent possession.

G. The Plaintiff primarily seeks the registration of ownership transfer from November 26, 1981 to the Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks the registration of ownership transfer from November 26, 1981 to November 26, 2001, when 20 years have elapsed since November 26, 2001 when the Plaintiff commenced possession. The Plaintiff seeks the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescription period from August 20, 2009, when 20 years have elapsed since the commencement of possession from August 20, 2009, when the date of the registration of ownership transfer of 203 land and 204 land was due to the completion of the prescription period from August 20, 2009, when 20 years have elapsed since the date of the instant lawsuit. The Plaintiff seeks the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescription period from August 22, 199, which was 20 years elapsed retroactively from the date of the instant lawsuit.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the main claim

The plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's assertion that the sum of USD 10,000 is the party to a sales contract on November 26, 1981, and since the above sales contract's obligatory effect does not extend to the defendants who are not parties to the above sales contract's obligatory effect, seeking the registration of ownership transfer under the above sales contract's aforementioned assertion itself cannot be accepted.

B. Determination of the selective claims in paragraphs 1 through 3 (1) issues and relevant legal principles

The Plaintiff’s selective claims Nos. 1 through 3 of the instant case are all the claims for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the statute of limitations for possession. However, under the premise that the Plaintiff is possessing the instant land as an intention to own it, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff’s possession is the possession without the intention to own it.

The intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with respect to the acquisition by prescription, ought to be objectively determined by the nature of the source of possessory right: Provided, That if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, it shall be presumed that the possessor has occupied the source of possessory right as an intention pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Even if the purchaser of land acquires possession of the land for the purpose by a sales contract, it constitutes the sale of another’s land, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the buyer has proved that he/she obtained possession on the basis of the source of possessory right in view of the nature of the source of possessory right, even if he/she

3. The en banc Decision 97Da3761 delivered on September 16. 16. However, in a case where a person without the authority to dispose of real estate acquired it from a person without the authority to dispose of it and acquired it with the knowledge that he could not have exclusive control as his own property, it cannot be said that he had an intention to own it at the time of commencement of possession (Supreme Court Decision 9Da50705 delivered on September 29, 200). (2) Whether the presumption of independent possession of the land of this case is reversed or not returned to the Plaintiff, 6-1 through 11, 10 evidence No. 1, 7, 8, 12, 14 delivered on the land of this case from 20 U.S. dollars to 30 U.S. dollars, 200 for each of the following facts: (3) the Plaintiff’s certificate of sale and purchase of the land of this case signed on the land of this case from 20 U.S. dollars to 30 U.S.S. 24 and 94.C.

- However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (i) through the argument in this case, the sum of USD 1 to 7 is no longer ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever, ever ever ever ever ever ever, ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever, ever ever ever ever ever ever, ever ever ever, ever ever ever, ever ever ever.

① The Plaintiff, at the time of entering into a sales contract with the Plaintiff for the said three parcels of land, believed that the Plaintiff would make a lump sum transfer of the registration of the instant land with the consent of the Defendants, which is an infinites, at the time of entering into the sales contract for the said three parcels of land, and thus, the Plaintiff first received the registration of transfer in 1989 for the two parcels of land in the name of USD 1989, which had been entered in the name of USD 1989, and later stated that “The Plaintiff had made the registration of transfer in 1989 for the said two parcels of land.”

② The land that is an ex post facto inherited property ** There was a total of four parcels. However, the land 203 and the land 204 had first been registered for transfer to the US$$, as seen above. Kimcheon-si* on July 20, 1981, on the ground of inheritance, the ownership transfer registration was completed on December 6, 1989 and on the ground of the Defendants’ co-ownership transfer registration was completed on the same day, but (No. 13) ownership transfer was completed in the private village, R& & M&D name in the US$, and on the land in this case, the land in question still remains registered in the name of the deceased**.

③ 임 $ $ 는 ' 대구 중구 ★로 2가 8 ' 에서 약 1개월간 거주 후 1980. 11. 24. 부터 1989. 11. 20. 까지 ' 대구 서구 미동 46 - 5 ' 또는 지번 정정으로 ' 대구 서구 미동 46 - 48 ' 에 거주하였음에도 ( 을 제12호증 ), 203 토지, 204 토지 및 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 1981. 5. 19. 작성된 각 등기필증 ( 갑 제10호증의 1, 2 ) 에는 임 $ $ 의 전주소인 ' 대구 중구 ★로 2가 8번지 ' 가 임 $ $ 의 주소로 기재되어 있다. 특히 204 토지에 대하여 임 $ $ 명의의 1981. 7. 30. 접수 제23629호 소유권이전등기상 임 $ $ 의 주소는 ' 대구 중구 ★로 2가 8번지 ' 로 되어 있다가 1989. 9. 26. 에 이르러서야 임 $ $ 의 주소를 ' 대구 서구 동46 - 48 ' 로 변경하는 등기 ( 원인 : 1982. 7. 31. 전거 ) 가 경료된 후 원고에게 같은 날 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다 ( 갑 제2호증의 2 ) .

④ Inasmuch as the said three parcels of land was kept in custody of USD 1,00,000 attached thereto (Evidence 7 of Section 7) and a sale certificate attached thereto, if the said three parcels of land was omitted, even though the said USD 1,00 was directly applied for the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for himself/herself in respect of the said three parcels of land, if only the registration for one parcel of land in this case was omitted, the said USD 1,000 was filed for an immediate correction, but did not file a request for correction. Therefore, there is doubt as to whether the applicant for registration under the Act on Special Measures for Land 203 and 204 was the one for the said $1.

⑤ With respect to land 203 and 204, the Plaintiff and the contracting parties to the contract shall be the sum of $$100.8 August 1989.

20. A sales contract is drawn up (No. 14) and the sales price is set up in KRW 3,405,00, which is similar to the amount of the claim already asserted by the Plaintiff. In addition, on August 20, 1989, there is no description as to the transfer of the instant land as a special stipulation in the sales contract.

If, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was transferred to the Plaintiff all ownership of 203 land, 204 land, and this case’s land, etc., the Plaintiff did not transfer only the instant land, etc., it is difficult to readily accept the entry in the above sales contract.

6) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, at the latest at the time of entering into a sales contract on August 20, 1989, the registration was completed with respect to the land 203 land and 204 land. However, with respect to the land in this case, it would still have been known that the registration had been made in the name of ***. Nevertheless, a corrective measure was not taken against the omission of the registration of the land in this case, but the registration was completed only with respect to the land 203 land and 204 land with the consent of the Defendants. Such action is difficult to obtain in light of the empirical rule (if the land in this case was donated before the birth of * as the Plaintiff’s assertion, it would be necessary to transfer the registration to the land in this case with the consent of the Defendants who are coinheritors * to take the corrective measures against the land in this case * to take the corrective measures against the Defendants in this case without the consent of the Defendants * to take the corrective measures against the land in this case.

7) Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, although the Plaintiff and the administrative secretary sought written consent to request the waiver of inheritance by finding the Defendants, they did not obtain the Defendants’ written consent, they concluded the registration of ownership transfer first on the land 203 and the land 204. In addition, the administrative secretary completed the registration of ownership transfer first on the land 204.

Although around August and around October, 1989, each of the Defendants requested the renunciation of inheritance on the instant land from each of the Defendants around October, 1989, the Defendants refused such refusal (No. 2-1, No. 2-4).

The plaintiff seems to have been aware that the plaintiff had no authority to dispose of the land of this case for the first time.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Jin-soo