beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties shall list the attached real estate to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 27, 1970, the Network D acquired the ownership of the Nam-gu B 824 and C 95 square meters. On July 2, 1973, the Minister of Construction and Transportation formulated a H-ro Urban Planning (Financial Expenses) on July 2, 1973, and decided to change the surrounding areas of each of the above land into a width of 30 meters.
B. On December 5, 1975, No. 824, the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and K 708 square meters. The land of this case was divided into the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 of the real estate list No. 1 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and L 782 square meters, respectively. Each of the land of this case was changed into a road on the same day, and was constructed on each of the land of this case and used as a road until now.
C. On October 10, 199, E was inherited each of the instant land by the designated parties E due to the death of D on October 10, 199, the 3/9 shares, the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the remaining designated parties, respectively.
On the other hand, the above K 708 square meters and L 782 square meters were transferred to M on September 22, 197, and the ownership was transferred to Samdo Housing Corporation on April 12, 1995 through N.
The remaining lands, other than each of the instant lands, among the lands divided in B B, No. 824 and C, No. 995, were sold to a third party. However, no disposition was made for each of the instant lands for a period of 40 years, and the network D died on October 10, 199, and the inheritance registration was completed in the name of the Defendant and the designated parties.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 25 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's video and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for not less than 20 years from December 5, 1975, and the Plaintiff is presumed to have occupied the instant land in a peaceful and public manner with the intent to own the instant land in accordance with Article 197 of the Civil Act.