logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.03 2018나75841 (1)
토지인도
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

3.In the trial, the trial shall be held.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the amended party members are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the Defendant’s assertion is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

From around 1961, the previous owner of the land claimed F has occupied the land in question as a building site in peace and public performance by continuously occupying the land in question as a building site. The Defendant succeeded to the possession of the previous owner around 1977, and has occupied the land in this case as a building site by continuously occupying the land in this case as a building site so far, and has occupied it in peace and public performance with the intention of possession.

In addition, on December 9, 1949, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of H, an incorporated foundation, H (hereinafter “the Foundation”) with respect to the whole land, and on December 30, 1994, “I et al. (hereinafter “the Foundation”) with respect to some portion of C’s land, the Foundation is “the Foundation 2”.

The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff as to the whole land C. As such, the Defendant, who had not completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the prescription period, even though the previous possessor and the Defendant’s possession had already been completed, may regard the land in dispute of this case as the starting point of the prescription period for possession as the second time of December 30, 1994, and the period of prescription for ownership transfer was completed on December 30, 2014.

B. Even if the ownership transfer registration under the name of a third party is made for the real estate without completing the prescription period after the completion of the prescription period, the possession period of the acquisition by prescription again takes the starting point for the change of the owner as the starting point for the change.

arrow