beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 29, 1979, the Defendant’s father D completed the registration of ownership transfer from E on the grounds of sale on February 5, 1971 with respect to the share of 224/271/270 of the 896 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, Kimyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 26, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer by inheritance on August 9, 2008 with respect to the said share. Meanwhile, on September 26, 1994, F completed the registration of ownership transfer from E on the share of 47/271 of the 896 square meters in Choyang-si, Kimyang-si, Kimyang-si on September 26, 1994.
B. The plaintiff and G are married couple with H as their children, and D and I are married couple with the defendant as their children, and G and D are siblings.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from E and gave the land of this case to D because D is difficult due to D's circumstances. However, the plaintiff returned the land of this case to the plaintiff around March 1980 in the sense that D's directors were paying back the money borrowed from the plaintiff due to D's circumstances. Since the plaintiff occupied the land of this case with D's own intent to cultivate the land of this case and possessed it in a peaceful and openly with D's intention to own, and acquired the prescription on March 200 after 200, the defendant, the heir of D's, is obligated to implement the procedure for transfer of ownership on or around March 200 for the completion of acquisition by prescription.
3. The defendant's assertion that D purchased the land of this case from E and completed the procedure for ownership transfer registration, cultivated the land of this case even after Masan moved into Masan, and paid taxes on the land of this case even after Mayang moved into J in Mayang-si on June 3, 1986. The plaintiff asserts that D did not acquire the land of this case by prescription.
4. Determination Dogs, B. 1.