beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
D, which had been the owner of the instant land, intended to exchange the land in the instant case and the land in the instant case, which is part of the instant land between E, with the land located in the boundary of 410 square meters, and the land in the instant dispute to E at least around that time.
Since August 29, 2001, D donated the land of this case to the defendant, who is the son, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership.
On the other hand, E sold the land in this case to the Plaintiff on October 15, 1995, and from that time, the Plaintiff continuously occupied the land in this case as its owner’s intention for at least 20 years.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on October 15, 2015 with respect to the land in the instant dispute to the Plaintiff.
Judgment
In order to recognize the prescriptive acquisition of part of one parcel of land, there is a need to continue to exist an objective proof sufficient to recognize that the part is separate from another part, and that it belongs to the possession of the prescriptive acquisitor.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Da9494 delivered on April 25, 1989, 96Da37428 delivered on March 11, 1997, etc.). According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 2 and 3, Gap evidence 5-1 and 2, as a result of on-site inspection of this court, and all pleadings, the plaintiff purchased the instant dispute land from E on October 15, 1995, cultivated it until now, and cultivated it, and occupied it. At present, it is recognized that there is an objective requisition for boundary because the difference between the land in question and the remaining part of the land in question is obvious.
However, there is no evidence to find out whether the above objective requisition exists within the period of prescription for possession, and rather, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the point at which the difference between the two lands occurs is the period of prescription for acquisition as it is until 1999.