logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.01.30 2018나307417
소유권이전등기
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as stipulated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main text of Article 420

(2)Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides that “The State property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 245 of the Civil Act, under the State Property Act, the State property shall not be subject to the acquisition by prescription,” and Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides that “The State property shall not be subject to the acquisition by prescription, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 245 of the Civil Act, for the completion of the acquisition by prescription for the State property under the State Property Act, the State property may continue to be subject to the acquisition by prescription for the period of the acquisition by prescription, and the State property shall not be subject to the provision of Article 25(2) of the Civil Act, despite the provision of Article 26(2) of the Public Property Act, the State property shall not be subject to the acquisition by prescription for the acquisition by prescription for the State property under the State Property Act.”

As stated in the above, in order to complete the prescriptive acquisition for public property, the public property should be a general property that can continue to be subject to the prescriptive acquisition for the period of the prescriptive acquisition, and the burden of proof on this point is against the claimant for the prescriptive acquisition;

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit.

arrow