beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff purchased each of the above lands from the Defendant’s Dong E (Death on April 8, 1995) that was a registered titleholder of the land No. 1 and the actual owner of the land No. 2 under the name of the Defendant (the death of April 8, 1995) around August 10, 194, and occupied each of the above lands in peace and openly and openly with its own intent for at least 20 years thereafter, the prescriptive acquisition of possession was completed around August 9,
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff.
B. We examine whether the Plaintiff may recognize that the land Nos. 1 and 2 was occupied at both times after August 10, 1994 and around August 10, 2014.
First, as to the land 2, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the land 2 from the network E as seen in the determination of the preliminary claim, as to the land from June 21, 1985, the above land is registered in the name of the Defendant, and as to the preliminary claim, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff occupied the land 2 at the above two times even according to all evidence and witness G and H's testimony, considering the following: the Defendant asserted that he has cultivated the land 2 through her friendship; the Plaintiff is not a farmer who is residing in the above F or is a farmer who works for a farming company; and there is no other land owned or cultivated by the Plaintiff in the vicinity of the second land.
On the other hand, as to the land 1, the plaintiff purchased it from I before 1994, but used it as access to K, L and 2 land of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, which had not been sold to J in 1994 or around 1995.
However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the above K and L land were sold to others at the latest in 1995, and it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff occupied the land No. 2 by cultivating the land, etc. as seen earlier.