beta
Text
1. The Defendants are entitled to share in each inheritance indicated in the separate sheet among the 635 square meters in the Mannam-do, Jeonnam-do. The Defendants are entitled to share in each inheritance indicated in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The owner on the registry of Mdae-gu, Jeonnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”) entered it as N, Japan, but Pursuant to the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging, Pursuant to the said Act, PO was found to have been at 7,800 transshipment of the said land from the Republic of Korea on January 30, 1955.
B.O died on July 20, 1986, and the Defendants succeeded to the property of the networkO as shown in the attached list.
C. On June 22, 1998, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract for the instant land and Qua land between P and P. D.
The Plaintiff owns the RR land adjacent to the instant land, and constructs and occupies a building on the land on which the Plaintiff owned the land (hereinafter referred to as “R land”).
[Ground of recognition] Defendant C, D, and F: Defendant B, E, G, H, I, J, K, and L: The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of evidence A1 through 5, testimony of P, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertionO sold the instant real estate to S, a father of P around 1965, and S donated it to P. P. P on June 22, 1998, P sold it to the Plaintiff and occupied the Plaintiff’s right in peace and performance.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquisition by prescription on June 22, 2018, which was 20 years from June 22, 1998 and 20 years from the purchase of the said land, completed the acquisition by prescription. As such, the Defendants, the deceasedO’s heir, are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the acquisition by prescription against the inheritance shares of the said land.
B. Defendant B, E, G, H, I, J, K, and L’s alleged networkO did not sell the instant land to S, and only allow S to reside free of charge at the beginning of the instant land without receiving any special consideration due to very difficult reason for P’s integration.
Although the netO transferred Q land adjacent to the instant land to S, the instant land did not move, and the Plaintiff around 1965 for Q Q, purchased from P along with the instant land.