Seoul Central District Court-2015-Ga group-103010 ( August 18, 2016)

The claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is dismissed. The second instance recognizes the prescriptive acquisition on the right to grave base added by the claimant.

There is no evidence to prove the fact that it occupied the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, and even if it was occupied, it is deemed as the possession of the owner, and the claim is dismissed.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Seoul Central District Court 2016Na32307

Park ○

○ Other than the Republic of Korea

Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan103010 (No. 18, 2016)

August 30, 2017

September 27, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. (a) The part of the conjunctive claims filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Defendant Dae-○○ and AA, added at the trial, are all dismissed;

B. At the preliminary claim against Defendant BB added by the Plaintiff at the trial:

(1) The Plaintiff and Defendant BB confirmed that the right to grave base on the part (i) size on the ship (i) size of 00 square meters connected each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 6, 7, and 1 among the real estate listed in Annex 1 List No. 1 attached hereto had been the Plaintiff.

(2) The plaintiff's remaining conjunctive claims against the defendant BB are dismissed.

3. Among the costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○○ and Defendant A shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and one-half of the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant BB, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

【State Claim】

The Plaintiff

1. As to real estate No. 1 listed in the annex 1 list:

A. (1) The ownership that ○○○○○ was completed on 190. ○○ District Court 190. ○○○○. ○○○○.

registration of transfer,

(2) Defendant AA’s transfer of ownership, completed on 200 . 0. ○. ○○. Receiving the ownership transfer

The provisional registration of the right to claim and the ownership completed on 2000. 0. ○. ○○.

registration of transfer,

3) The ownership of the Defendant Grand○○○ State, which was completed by the same court 200. 0. ○○. ○○○.

registration of transfer,

(4) Defendant BB’s transfer of ownership that was completed on 200, 00. ○. ○○○.

Registration

execution of each procedure for cancellation registration;

B. The Defendant Grand○○ State is a transfer registration for ownership on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on the 190. 0. ○○.

Implementation of Vehicles;

2. For Defendant 1-○○○ Bureau, each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 5, 7, 9, 13 through 0.

○○ District Court 190.1. 17. The words of the registration of transfer of ownership completed by the recipient ○○ on January 17.

The registration procedure shall be implemented, and the transfer of ownership, etc. on the ground of completion of the acquisition by prescription 190.0

Implementation of the Procedure;

3. As to the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 No. 1 list:

A. (1) The ownership that ○○○○○ was completed on 190. ○○ District Court 190. ○○○○. ○○○○.

registration of transfer,

(2) Defendant BB’s transfer of ownership that was completed on 200, 200. ○. ○○○.

Registration

execution of each procedure for cancellation registration;

B. The Defendant Grand○○ State is a transfer registration for ownership on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on the 190. 0. ○○.

Hadar.

(Plaintiffs) As to each real estate listed in the table Nos. 1 in the trial of the party, Defendant Dae-○○.

about the real estate No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1, as to the defendants

A claim for cancellation of each ownership transfer registration or ownership transfer registration against Dae○○, BB

All parts were withdrawn)

【Preliminary Claim】

Attached 2 Map 2 among real estate No. 1 listed in Attached 1 List between the Plaintiff and the Defendants;

A ship which connects each point of 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 7, 8, 21, 22, 10, 11, 12, and 2 in sequence.

It is confirmed that the Plaintiff had the right to graveyard on a part of 0 square meters (the Plaintiff is the Defendants in the trial).

In addition, the conjunctive claim was added.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation on this case is as follows, except for the addition of “the judgment on the plaintiff’s conjunctive claim” under the judgment on the plaintiff’s conjunctive claim added at the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (Provided, That the part on the plaintiff’s conjunctive claim at the first instance trial’s co-defendant Kim○, Lee○, ○, Park○, Ga○, Ga○, Ga○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○, and the part on each real estate set forth in the table No. 1 listed in

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

(a) Basic facts;

(1) Around 190. around 190. Around 190., as indicated in the annexed table 1, the Plaintiff’s attached table 1, as indicated in the annexed table 2 drawings, ① the part of the grave drawings (2) of the Plaintiff’s earlyboxide ○○ (Death on 190. ○○○) and ② the part (6) of the Plaintiff’s earlybide ○○ (Death on 190. 3) and the part (9) of the grave drawings of the Plaintiff’s earlybide ○○ (Death on 190. ○. ○) (Death on 190. 4. ○○ on 190. 4) of the Plaintiff’s finalbide bage ○○ (Death on 190. ○○○) (Death on 190. ○○ on 190) and the part of the grave drawings of the Plaintiff’s earlybide ○○○ (Death on 190).

(2) As CCC died on October 190, 190, the Plaintiff joined the said grave on around 0, 190, and created a part X on around 0, 190, the grave drawings (4) around 190, on around 190, on around 190, on around 00, by creating X. (3) Since the death of the ACC, the Plaintiff improved the CCC and managed each of the above graves (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant graves”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 0, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 1, the appraisal results and supplementary appraisal results of the party's appraiser Kim ○, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to Defendant BB

According to the above facts, the plaintiff has occupied and managed each of the above graves in a peaceful and public performance for more than 20 years following the CCC since each of the instant graves was installed to the present time. Thus, the plaintiff is deemed to have acquired the right to grave base by prescription to the extent necessary for the protection and management of each of the above graves among the real estates No. 1 No. 1 listed in the annexed Table 1 where each of the instant graves is installed.

On the other hand, the right to grave base shall extend not only to the base of the grave itself (the bottom part of the grave), but also to the area including the vacant land around the base, within the extent necessary for the protection and removal of the grave, and its clear scope shall be determined individually in each specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da15530, Dec. 23, 1994; 95Da29086, May 23, 1997; 95Da29086, 29093, etc.). In full view of the results of the inquiry into the appraiser Kim ○ by the court of the trial into the fact-finding, the scope necessary for the plaintiff to safeguard and manage each of the of the graves of this case may be recognized the fact-finding as part (a) in the ship connected in sequence with each point of the annexed Form 3 drawings.

Therefore, the plaintiff's preliminary claim against the defendant BB is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff BB contests about whether or not the plaintiff's right to grave base exists, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized.

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the said right to grave base as to whether the conjunctive claim was lawful among the lawsuits against Defendant Dae-○○○○ and AA, and against Defendant Dae-○○○ and AA, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the said right to grave base. As such, the Plaintiff’s ownership of real estate No. 1 listed in the separate list No. 1 is Defendant BB as seen above. Thus, the Plaintiff did not have any benefit to seek confirmation of the said right to grave base against Defendant Dae-○○ and AAA, which is not the owner of the said real estate. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant AA and BB is both unlawful and dismissed, and the main claim against the defendant Large○○○○○ is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals against the defendants are dismissed. The part of the main claim against the plaintiff is all unlawful and dismissed. The conjunctive claim against the defendant BB is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.