beta
Text
1. The Defendant indicated on the attached Table 2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, among the land size of 1944 square meters in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 5, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased 641m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) from Nonparty E, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 17th of the same month.
B. The Defendant is the owner of 1944 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) prior to Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the said land and the land owned by the Plaintiff are adjacent to each other.
C. Meanwhile, Nonparty E is occupying and using part of the instant land owned by the Defendant. On December 5, 1996, Nonparty E sold the Plaintiff’s land to the Plaintiff on December 5, 1996, and the Plaintiff occupied and used the said part.
Of the land owned by the Defendant, the portion 1 to 14 and 1 of “1” portion of “1” in the ship connected with the attached table 1 to 14, among the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant portion 1”) is a road. The said portion 2, 15 through 21, and 8, the said appraisal 2, 15 through 21, and
7. On the ship that connects 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2 with each other, a 80 square meters portion of “bb” portion (hereinafter “the instant portion”) is preceding the current status, and 17, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, and 17 are installed in the 3rd section (hereinafter “instant 3rd section”) which connects 17, 23, 22, 21, 20, 18, and 17 the said 3rd section. The Plaintiff is using the said 1st section as a road, the said 3rd section as a 2nd section, and the 3rd section as a 3rd section.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. At the time of the purchase of the Plaintiff’s land, the Plaintiff allegedly occupied the land as owned by the Plaintiff for at least 20 years, knowing that the instant portion 1, 2, and 33 were connected to the Plaintiff’s land and its boundary is divided due to the road, and thus, it was included in the purchase land. As such, the prescription period for possession was completed.
3. Determination
A. As to the judgment on the part A of this case, the Plaintiff’s own contribution was formed from the time of purchase of land.