(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.10.02 2018나3401

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.10.02 2018나3401

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 1971, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant road due to sale.

B. On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale and purchase with respect to the land of approximately 27.9 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Appointed”) in Jungdong-gu, Seoul. D on October 28, 2015, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale and purchase.

C. The instant road is alley connected to the public road, and is a road connected to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s land and each of the land on the ground of the Appointed Party’s land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. From January 12, 1973 to December 6, 1971, the appointed party occupied the road of this case with the intention of possession for 20 years including the period of possession by the former owner from January 12, 1973, and the acquisition by prescription has been completed. Thus, the defendant should implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership as to the 1/2 share of the land of this case to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party due to the completion of the prescription period of possession.

3. Determination

A. “Possession” refers to the objective relationship in which an article is deemed to belong to the factual control of a person under the social concept, and thus, there is a view to excluding another person’s interference (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da923, Jul. 16, 1974); and 1-C.

According to the purport of the appeal and arguments, although the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selection Party are using the road of this case as a passage, it is recognized that neighboring housing residents or ordinary people freely have access to the road of this case, and according to this, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selection Party use the road of this case as a passage to each house on the land of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Land of the Selection Party and others.

참조판례

-대법원 1974. 7. 16. 선고 73다923 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.07 2018가단6485

-울산지방법원 2015.01.09 2014가단24616

-광주지방법원 2016.07.27 2015가단48936

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2021.04.30 2020가단3515

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.01.31 2016가단22220