(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.16 2018나71191

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.16 2018나71191

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's explanation of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion, the deceased, and the Plaintiff commenced possession of the land of this case at least after 2008.

In addition, since the deceased commenced possession after leasing the land of this case from around 1970, such possession is the possession of the owner.

B. According to the statements and videos of Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, and Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 7, the deceased acquired the ownership of the dry field of this case on May 18, 1983, and the deceased and the plaintiff possessed while cultivating the dry field of this case and the land of this case since that time, it is presumed that the possession was harmful to the deceased's peace and public performance.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, although it is recognized that the deceased joined the FJ around December 31, 1970, the above evidence alone is insufficient to deem that the deceased leased the land of this case from around 1970, and there is no other evidence to recognize the fact that the deceased occupied the land of this case. Even if the deceased leased the dry field of this case and cultivated the land of this case from around 1970, it shall be deemed that the dry field of this case and the land of this case were converted into possession independently from the time of acquisition of ownership of the dry field of this case on May 18, 1983.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가단5198673

-청주지방법원 2014.12.24 2014가단157883

-대법원 1992. 10. 13. 선고 92다29696 판결

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.09.16 2014가단2268

-전주지방법원 남원지원 2017.03.08 2016가단1077