beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant agreed on July 15, 1959 to donate the land stated in the claim(hereinafter "the land of this case") to E as a case of restoration of distributed farmland to its original state (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"), Eul died on May 2, 1991 and jointly succeeded to the F, the wife of the property, and eight children, including the plaintiff, G, and the F et al. on February 24, 2005. Unless there is any counter-proof, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership as to the land of this case to the plaintiff who is the deceased E/F's heir [the share of inheritance = 2/19 (3/19/19/19/19/8)] by reason of the agreement of this case.
However, E was able to exercise the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant land from July 15, 1959, which entered into the instant agreement, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on February 22, 2012 after the lapse of ten years from that date. Thus, the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant land portion has already expired before E’s birth.
Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit.
As long as the Plaintiff’s parents, including E, and their families continuously and indirectly occupied the instant land through each lease agreement with H and I, a direct occupant of the instant land from the date of the conclusion of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration does not run.
However, since the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on March 2, 1965 in the name of the Defendant, there was no exercise of the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer under the instant agreement before the instant lawsuit was filed, the occupant of the instant land, such as H and I prepared each lease contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s family members, such as E, receive the land use fee from H and I again.