logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나15483
부동산소유권이전등기 등
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Assertion and determination

A. After purchasing the instant housing and its site around July 19, 1971 and completing the registration of ownership transfer on July 21, 1971, the Plaintiff occupied the instant part of the dispute in peace and openly as the site of the fence surrounding the instant housing and its site. Since the period of prescription for possession acquisition was completed on July 22, 1991, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer for the instant part of the dispute to the Plaintiff on July 22, 1991.

B. Determination 1) In a case where the part occupied as a building site of a house intrudes on the road and the said part protruding out in view of a neighboring party’s wall or building, the owner’s possession of the said part of the said part of the house should be deemed as the owner’s possession from the time when the wall was relatively protruding out (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da348, Apr. 25, 2000). The following circumstances are revealed by adding up the result of the on-site inspection of this court in the above evidence, namely, the Plaintiff’s possession of the said part of the road, i.e., the Plaintiff’s housing fence protruding out compared to a neighboring party’s wall or building, and the road following the passage of the Plaintiff’s housing fence is wider than twice, the owner of the instant house of this case should be deemed to have known that, as seen above, from the time when the fence was relatively protruding out, his land occupied was invaded by another party’s land. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there were special circumstances from the point of possession of view.

arrow