beta
Text
1. Following the amendment of the purport of the claim by this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.
The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the first instance judgment 2, 17, 7, and 21, except for the following cases. Thus, the court citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts in height:
A. From 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first-class 10 to 7th of the judgment is as follows.
B. On the premise that the owner of the instant apartment has occupied the instant land frequently, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the instant land from the owner of the instant apartment upon obtaining the approval plan for the management and disposal plan for the instant rearrangement project from the competent Seocho-gu office on February 9, 2017. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has the obligation to implement and deliver to the Plaintiff the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the prescriptive acquisition on February 10, 2017 (based on the starting point of the prescription period chosen voluntarily by the Plaintiff) with respect to the instant land.
2) Whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession with the intention of ownership or without the intention of ownership is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, not by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of possession or by all circumstances related to the possession. Thus, the possessor is proved to have obtained possession on the basis of the title that the possessor is deemed to have no intention of ownership due to its nature, or cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intent of exercising exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding another’s ownership. In other words, the possessor is deemed to have taken an external and objective position, such as where the possessor does not act to have taken place as a matter of course if he/she had expressed his/her attitude of not taking ordinary possession or if he/she did not act to have taken place.