beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1.
The registration of ownership transfer has been completed on November 10, 1980, and the registration of ownership transfer has been completed on March 11, 1983 following the successful bid on August 29, 1982. The registration of ownership transfer has been completed on September 19, 1984, and the registration of ownership transfer has been completed on March 14, 1988 following the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as of December 30, 1983.
B. On November 26, 1982, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the D future due to the entrustment of the registration of provisional injunction on the land of this case (hereinafter “instant building”) on November 26, 1982, and on October 2, 1984, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale on June 4, 1982.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that on November 25, 1982, the second floor of the building in this case purchased 20 square meters, 203 Hobbes, 4 and 61 Hobbes, 3rd floor of the building in this case (hereinafter "the purchase part of the building in this case"), and also purchased 876/3,767 shares, which are land shares corresponding thereto (hereinafter "land shares in this case"). However, on October 2, 1984, when the registration of ownership transfer was completed only for the purchase part of the building in this case, the plaintiff occupied the land shares in this case with intent to own the land shares in this case by October 2, 2004. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer for the completion of acquisition by prescription as to the land shares in this case, and the defendant asserted that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's request since he was maliciously occupied.
B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is the owner’s intention.