(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2017.11.17 2017가합101068

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2017.11.17 2017가합101068

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the claim was as follows: (a) from January 1, 1994 to January 1, 1994, the Plaintiff occupied each of the above real estates in peace and openly and openly with intent to own them; and (b) on January 1, 2014, the prescriptive acquisition of each of the above real estates was completed.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 1, 2014 with respect to each of the instant real property to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant real estate owned by B from January 1, 1994. Meanwhile, it is presumed that the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with its own intent.

However, even if the acquisition by prescription of possession of real estate has been completed, if the transfer registration of ownership of the real estate has been completed to a third party with respect to the real estate without registration, the possessor cannot oppose the third party.

(1) The Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration on each of the instant real estate was completed on or after January 1, 2014, as long as the ownership transfer registration on each of the instant real estate has been completed on or after January 1, 2014 before the expiration of the period of prescription for the Plaintiff’s possession of each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the completion of the period of prescription for the acquisition of each of the instant real estate, as long as the ownership transfer registration on each of the instant real estate has been completed in the Defendant’s future before the completion of the period of prescription for the acquisition of each of the instant real estate after January 1, 2014.

Therefore, the plaintiff's ground of claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원상주지원 2017.11.22 2017가단1072

-울산지방법원 2016.02.17 2015가단53710

-대구지방법원서부지원 2017.10.19 2017가단51713

-창원지방법원거창지원 2014.02.20 2012가단2700

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.09.12 2018가단561