logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.02.09 2017나58181
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court

2. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following shall be added to the parts which are written or added:

Even in cases where 20 years have elapsed since the succession to the possession by the former possessor, the former possessor may claim the completion of the acquisition by taking the time of voluntary commencement of the possession as the starting point, and even if the ownership has been changed, if the registration titleholder is the same at the end of the period of acquisition by succession, the same shall also apply in cases where the total sum of the period of possession by the former possessor and the period of his own possession has elapsed after the change in ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da34037, May 12, 1998). On the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment, the following contents are added following the 15th sentence.

(A) On June 7, 1974, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant purchased the land before subdivision from E, but it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, at the time, purchased the land before subdivision in light of the fact that the Defendant was merely 19 years of age and was living together with the mother, the Defendant purchased the land before subdivision in accordance with Section 7 of the first instance judgment.

On the 7th anniversary of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

④ On July 28, 1994, the land before subdivision was divided into C, 132 square meters and F land prior to Sejong-si, and on the same day C, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the defendant. On August 3, 1994, G had been completed in the name of 14 other than I and 14 persons (hereinafter “I, etc.”).

In light of the process of land division and ownership transfer registration, the defendant also divided the land before division and G.

arrow