(영문) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2018.04.04 2017가단10515

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) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2018.04.04 2017가단10515

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) the Plaintiff purchased part of the claim(b), (d), and (f) (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from E, which owned the land D and C (hereinafter “L”) from the Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, at the time of spring in 1997; (b) the purchase was completed on March 1, 2017, where 20 years have elapsed since he/she continuously occupied and cultivated the instant real estate in peace and openly with his/her intent to own.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the owner of D and C, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on March 1, 2017 with respect to the instant real estate on the ground of the completion of the prescription period for acquisition by possession.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, in principle, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in peace and public performance with his/her own will.

However, in the prescription period for the acquisition of real estate, whether the possession of the possessor is the possession with intention of possession or with intention of possession without intention of possession is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of the possession or all circumstances related to the possession, it should be determined externally and objectively. Thus, it is objective that the possessor is proved that he/she acquired the possession on the basis of the title that he/she does not have the intention of possession by nature, or that the possessor does not possess the possession with the intention of exercising exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding the ownership of another person. In other words, if it is proved that the possessor does not have an intention of possession with intention of possession by reason of external and objective view, such as where the possessor does not normally take the position of the real owner or does not take an action that the possessor would have taken as a matter of course if it is proved that the possessor did not have an intention

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on August 21, 1997

참조조문

-민법 제197조 제1항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2012.05.30 2011가단2922

-인천지방법원 2016.05.24 2015가단208985

-창원지방법원 2014.09.18 2013나32707

-대구지방법원상주지원 2020.05.12 2019가단8350