logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.12.04 2018나321604
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the “O” in the 3th page of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as F; and (b) except for adding the following matters, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff asserts that around 1954, the land of this case was distributed or purchased and possessed since that time.

(B) The reason for acquiring the instant land was the first 1954 repayment, but it was argued that the land was regularly purchased from N in around 1989, and then the last change was made.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the possession of the plaintiff's land of this case is not an independent possession.

The specific details are as follows:

① The instant land is not distributed farmland.

The Plaintiff did not purchase the instant land from N.

The fact that the plaintiff's assertion is reversed by itself.

② The Plaintiff did not demand N to transfer registration of the instant land.

③ The competent tax authority revoked the imposition of property tax on the instant land to the Plaintiff and refunded the tax amount paid by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff did not raise any objection against this.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff himself has actually occupied the land of this case since 2008, and that the prescription period for possession has not yet completed.

C. However, as seen earlier, even if there is no evidence to acknowledge the right of possession asserted by the Plaintiff, the presumption of possession with autonomy is not reversed immediately.

This is the same even if the plaintiff's assertion was changed as to the title of possession.

Therefore, the presumption of possession with only the circumstances mentioned above was reversed.

arrow