beta
Text
1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On November 14, 1986, the Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which owned a school foundation B (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “instant land”), the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground of donation.
B. A de facto leading the establishment of B, network D (the director of B until January 25, 1971, and died around 1980) was built on the ground of the instant land without obtaining a construction permit in around 1968 (the registration of initial ownership was not made) and thereafter, the Plaintiff (F birth) born between D and E, a de facto wife, was killed on November 2008 (hereinafter “instant building”) while continuously occupying the instant unregistered building (hereinafter “instant building”) and continuing to occupy the instant unregistered building on January 201, 203.
C. On the ground that the Defendant occupied the instant land to E without permission on March 21, 1994, imposed indemnity on E or the Plaintiff annually from 1989 to 1993. On March 29, 2012, the Defendant imposed indemnity amounting to KRW 52,219,80 of the indemnity (from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 201), and indemnity amounting to KRW 54,58,000 of the indemnity amount (from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201) on the Plaintiff on June 21, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 1” and “instant Disposition 2” in sequence, and collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).
On the other hand, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Western District Court 2003Gahap9285) filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on September 29, 2003 (Seoul Western District Court 2003Gahap9285) seeking the removal of the building of this case and the transfer of the land of this case, and received a favorable judgment on April 13, 2005, and the plaintiff filed an appeal (Seoul High Court 2005Na46945) on February 7, 2006, and revoked the judgment of the first instance on the ground that the prescriptive acquisition of the land of this case by the plaintiff is recognized.