(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.05.31 2015가단110560

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.05.31 2015가단110560

소유권이전등기절차이행 등

Text

1. The claims against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 22, 1993, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the land in dispute from the owner G at the time of the purchase; (b) paid the purchase price; and (c) used the land in the passage, parking lot, etc. of the Plaintiff’s housing to be delivered so far; and (c) occupied the land in peace and public performance with the intention of possession for twenty (20) years.

Therefore, since the acquisition by prescription of possession was completed on March 22, 2013 after the lapse of 20 years from the commencement of possession, Defendant C, D, and E, co-owners, should transfer ownership by share, due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

B. As above, the Plaintiff purchased the land in dispute from G, and the Defendant B solely inherited the land in dispute, the Plaintiff is obligated to register the transfer of ownership as the seller.

The network H purchased the entire parcel of land including the dispute land from Defendant B, a form of punishment, and transferred its ownership, but it was well known that the Plaintiff purchased the dispute land, so the registration of the dispute land is invalid because it is not consistent with the substantive relations.

Therefore, in order to preserve the right to claim the registration of transfer against Defendant B, the Plaintiff sought registration for the restoration of the true name of registration from the remainder of the Defendants, who are the heir of H, by subrogation of Defendant B, and the Plaintiff seeks registration of transfer based on the sale to Defendant B.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act of the primary claim, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her owner’s intention. Therefore, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her intention. Rather, he/she bears the burden of proving the establishment of the prescriptive acquisition by asserting that the possessor has no intention to own it. However, the person who asserts the prescriptive acquisition on the premise of it has the burden of proving the fact that he/she is an exclusive

However, there is a problem.

참조조문

-민법 제197조 제1항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나52058

-대전지방법원 2015.5.28. 선고 2014가단28050 판결

-인천지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단50530 (1)

-전주지방법원 2018.10.11 2018가단8660

-제주지방법원 2015.06.17 2014나2525