Chang-Support 2014Gadan3929 ( November 24, 2015)

possession of the instant real property in a peaceful manner with the intent to possess it;

When the purchaser pays the purchase price in full in accordance with Article 22 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction as an administrative disposition, the ownership is automatically transferred to the purchaser without registering the purchase price.

Article 22 of the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion

2015Na36642 Registration for cancellation of ownership

Plaintiff, Appellants

United Kingdom A

Republic of Korea and 2

O District Court OO branch 2014 Ghana3929

September 27, 2016

October 18, 2016

1.On a request for change in exchange at the time of the trial,

가. 피고 대한민국은 피고 박BB, 박CC에게 경남 OO군 OO면 OO리 XXX 하천 XXX㎡에 관하여 OO지방법원 OO지원 1994. XX. XX. 접수 제XXX호로 마친 소유권보존등기의 말소등기절차를,

B. Defendant ParkB and ParkCC shall file with the Plaintiff the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription under XX. XX. The procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription is against each of the above real estates 1 XX/4 XX shares.

D. Each performance shall be made.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendants.

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The first instance court's decision is revoked. (The first instance plaintiff primarily sought against the defendant Republic of Korea the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation on the above real estate in subrogation of the defendant ParkB, ParkCC, and the performance of registration of ownership transfer registration on each of the above real estate 1/2 shares in each of the above real estate by each sale and purchase against the defendant ParkB, ParkB, and ParkCC, and subsequently sought from the defendant Republic of Korea the implementation of registration of ownership transfer registration on each of the above real estate 2014. XX. The first instance court sought against the defendant ParkB, ParkB, and ParkCC on each of the above real estate by subrogation of the defendant ParkB and ParkCC, and the implementation of registration of ownership transfer on each of the above real estate 1 p/4 shares in each of the above real estate 200.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea, and ParkCC, or can be acknowledged in accordance with the entries of the Plaintiff 1, the testimony of witnesses KimD of the first instance court, the fact-finding results and the entire purport of the pleadings, and it is deemed that Defendant ParkB led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and Defendant ParkB.

가. 피고 대한민국은 경남 OO군 OO면 OO리 XXX 하천 XXX㎡(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라고 한다)에 관하여 OO지방법원 OO등기소 1994. XX. XX. 접수 제XXX호로 소유권보존등기(이하 '이 사건 소유권보존등기'라고 한다)를 마쳤다.

B. The Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate from around XX. From around 1980, at least, and up to now remains both a poppy and a rice shed on its ground.

C. Defendant ParkB and ParkCC are some co-inheritorss of ParkE, and their inheritance shares.

Korea is 1 XX/4 XX(1/40).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

ParkE acquired ownership by purchasing the instant real estate from the Defendant Republic of Korea at the X and the City Education Institute, and by acquiring the ownership thereof. ParkE’s co-inheritors inherited the instant real estate share in proportion to their respective inheritance shares. From around October 1980 to 20 years, the Plaintiff acquired prescription by occupying the instant real estate in peace and public performance with the intent to own it for more than 20 years. The Plaintiff, who has the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of each prescriptive prescription against the co-inheritors of Park E-E, by subrogationing the Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, who is a part of the co-inheritors of ParkE, sought the cancellation of the instant registration of ownership transfer by seeking the cancellation of the instant registration of ownership transfer, and Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, who is a part of the co-inheritors, sought the implementation of each inheritance share in the instant real estate in proportion to their respective inheritance shares.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Since a sales contract of state property made between ParkE and Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "sales contract") includes that ParkE and the Defendant Republic of Korea have sold and purchased the POPOPPP (hereinafter referred to as "PP real property"), it cannot be said that ParkE received the real property of this case.

3. Determination

A. Whether Park E-E has received the real estate of this case

ParkE received from the Defendant Republic of Korea the real estate stated in PPP real estate under the sales contract PPP real estate PP from the Defendant Republic of Korea, in the absence of dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea and the ParkCC, and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ParkB, it is deemed that the Defendant ParkB led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff asserts that the PP real estate under the sales contract is the real estate of this case, so whether the above two real estate are the same or not.

In light of the following circumstances, PP real estate in a sales contract can be recognized as identical to the real estate in this case, in light of Gap 2, 5, 6, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, Eul 1, 5, and 6, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to the head of the OO of this court:

1) Since the PP lot number does not exist in the land cadastre and the register, it seems that the public official in charge is erroneous from other lot numbers and the above lot number is indicated in the sales contract.

2) 매매계약서 후단에는 PPP 부동산의 면적이 XXX평이라고 기재되어 있다. 이 사건 부동산의 면적은 XXX㎡이고 이를 평으로 환산하면 XXX.08평이어서, PPP 부동산과 그 면적이 거의 같다.

3) The shape of the PP real estate stated in the sales document (B) submitted by the Defendant (B) and the shape of the instant real estate is very similar in light of a certified copy of the cadastral map as indicated below.

4) On the first legal date for pleading, Defendant ParkCC stated to the effect that it was aware of the fact that Gao sold the instant real estate to the Plaintiff’s GaoW with the Plaintiff’s GaoW on the first legal date for pleading. In light of the fact that Gao appears to have delivered a sales contract prepared between Gao and the Defendant Republic of Korea while selling the instant real estate to GaoW, Gao seems to have been aware that Gao had received the instant real estate from Defendant Republic of Korea.

5) The rightR completed registration of preservation of ownership on 1994, at the time similar to that of the instant case, with respect to e-O real estate at the same e-ri-ri-ri-ri-T-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-im, the right of preservation of ownership is likely to have been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502). Considering that the instant real estate is a parcel number adjacent to the said real estate, the pertinent real estate is likely to have been left at the time.

6) The Defendant Republic of Korea argued to the effect that Park E-E acquired the instant real property by taking it out through the statement at the date of the second pleading on 2014, in the case of the claim for the registration of ownership transfer by OO branch 2014 O branch O branch 2014. The Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that Park E-E acquired the instant real property by taking it out through the statement at the date of the second pleading 2014.

In light of Article 22 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership as an administrative disposition, if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price, the ownership is not required to be registered and the ownership is automatically transferred to the purchaser (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da49459, Feb. 13, 1998). ParkE acquired the ownership of the instant real estate from the Defendant Republic of Korea on or around February 13, 1962. The heir acquired the ownership by taking the instant real estate out from the Defendant Republic of Korea on or around 1962. After the death of ParkE, the heir acquired the ownership according to the inheritance share

B. Whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate by prescription

According to the facts stated in Paragraph 1, the Plaintiff can be found to possess the instant real estate for a period of more than 20 years from GATT 1980.

In light of the following circumstances, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the instant real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and the entire purport of the statement and pleading as set forth in Article 197(1) and Article 197(2) of the Civil Act, i.e., the Plaintiff continued to hold a sales contract made between Park E and the Defendant Republic of Korea, and Defendant Park ChCC recognized that Park ChCC sold the instant real estate to the Plaintiff’s rightW, etc., it can be recognized that the Plaintiff, as he purchased and donated the instant real estate from ParkW to himself, was believed to be a legitimate owner and has occupied the instant real estate in a peaceful and peaceful manner

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate by prescription in XX. 200, past 20 years from XX. around 1980.

C. Sub-committee

Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, the co-owner of the instant real estate, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the instant registration of ownership preservation, and Defendant ParkB and ParkCC, respectively, with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance ratio 1 XX/4 XX of each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer due to completion of the acquisition by prescription XX.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case that has been changed in exchange at the trial of the party is well-grounded, and it is decided to accept it (the previous lawsuit was withdrawn from the exchange change of the lawsuit at the trial of the party, and the judgment of the court of first instance became null and void) and the disposition is delivered.