Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang Sang-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

November 24, 2006

1. The Defendant: (1) The Government District Court of Dongcheon-si, Dongcheon-si, 365-4, Seocheon-si, Dongcheon-si, 994 received on November 2, 1995, and (2) the Government District Court of Jungcheon-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, Do-si, 813-1 river 40 square meters received on December 17, 1996 and received on December 17, 368; (3) the Government District Court of Jungcheon-si, Dong-si, Do-si, 532-2 river 46 square meters registered on December 17, 1996; (4) the Government of Dong-si, Seocheon-si, Dong-si, Do-si, Do-si, 132-2-17 square meters registered on December 17, 1996; and (5) the procedures for registration of preservation of ownership completed on July 138, 1975 square meters-18.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 30% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The order of paragraph (1) and paragraph (1) of the same Article and paragraph (2) of the same Article and paragraph (2) of the same Article and paragraph (2) of the same Article and paragraph (2)-6-6 forest area of 2387 square meters are the District Court of Dongcheon-si Office of 867 of March 19, 1962 and the receipt of No. 867 of March 19, 1962 with respect to the area of 3-2 forest area of 810 square meters located in Dong-dong, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, and with respect to the area of 24-5 square meters of 906 square meters located in Dong-si, Seocheon-si, Macheon-si, Macheon-si Office of 167 of March 19, 1962 and with respect to the registration of 242,000 square meters of 1,2225,000 square meters of Gu-si, 1959.

1. Basic facts

A. Circumstances of the lands before subdivision

(1) Dongcheon-gun, Dongcheon-gun, Dongcheon-do 365, 1309, 2. 813, 3,489, 489, 3. 4,893, 4, 514, 514, 524, 6, 119, 132, 7, 312, 722, 3,083, 9, 788, 788, 788, and 1,076, respectively, of the same 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

B. Division of land under consideration;

Each of the above lands was divided as shown in the table attached to the change of administrative district.

(c) Inheritance relationship;

(1) Meanwhile, on January 9, 1919, the Plaintiff’s prior-board ○○ (the Plaintiff’s prior-board ○○) died without his child and temporarily succeeded to his family sovereignty and miscarriage, but on September 1, 1922, Nonparty 3 was selected as the ex post facto mother of ○○○, and succeeded to the family head’s right again from Nonparty 5. Nonparty 5 died on April 15, 1926, and Nonparty 3 was the inheritor of his property.

(2) After that, Nonparty 3 died on May 17, 1975 and became the co-inheritors of Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, 9, and the Plaintiff, who was his wife, Nonparty 10, 11, 12, and 15, who was his wife, Nonparty 13, 14, and 15, who was his wife, and Nonparty 8 died on January 15, 1989 and was his wife, Nonparty 16 and Nonparty 17, who was his wife, and Nonparty 10 died on March 12, 1989, and became his husband, Nonparty 18, Nonparty 19, who was his husband, and Nonparty 19 and 20, who was his husband.

(3) However, each of the above inheritors, including the Plaintiff, agreed on November 30, 1992 that each of the instant lands shall be owned by the Plaintiff’s sole owner by agreement division.

D. Registration of preservation of ownership of each land of this case

(1) The defendant shall add 1.5 square meters to 365-4 2,000 square meters per 27.5 square meters per 27.5 square meters per 1,000 - 275 square meters per 27.5 square meters per 27,000 - 10,000 - 36869 on December 17, 1996 with 36869, 2-6 - 9,000 - 27,000 - 1,0000 - 27,000 - 97,000 - 27,000 - 9,000 - 27,000 - 9,000 - 27,000 - 97,000 - 1,000 - 97,000 - - 36,000 - 9,002

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 11 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to 2-6 square meters in the one-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, 2387 square meters in the same Ri-3-2 forest and 810 square meters in the same Ri-2 forest and 24-5 square meters in the same Ri-24-5 square meters in the same Ri

Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records (amended by Presidential Decree No. 694 of Apr. 27, 1962) provides that matters concerning the acquisition, loss, and change of land ownership shall not be registered on the land cadastre without notification by the registry office. Thus, the entry of change of land owner on the former land cadastre cannot be deemed to have been made by notification by the public official of registration pursuant to this provision. Therefore, if the ownership of a specific person on the former land cadastre is registered as transfer of ownership in the future, the specific person acquired ownership at that time, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da32900, Jul. 14, 1995, etc.).

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2-3, 4, and 6, as to each of the above land in the old land cadastre, ○○, the assessment titleholder, stated as ownership holder on March 19, 1962, and the fact that registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of the defendant on the same day after the transfer of ownership was made on March 19, 1962. Thus, the defendant acquired ownership around that time, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. Determination as to the 722-5 Masan-ri 891 m2, 722-13 m2, 1275 m2, and 482 m2 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and 8, 9, 10, and all pleadings, if added, it was divided from 722-5 and 722-13 and 482 square meters per annum on December 11, 1991 from Masan-ri 722-13 and 722-14 and 482 square meters per annum on the land before division. Since the Gu land cadastre on the land before division is entered as the owner, Cho-○, the title holder of which was the owner of the land, has been transferred to the non-party 21, and the ownership transfer was made on December 29, 1958, and the registration of ownership preservation was made in the defendant's name on the same day, the defendant acquired ownership at that time. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not recognized.

[The registration of initial ownership was completed on December 29, 1958 with respect to 722-14 square meters, but the registration of initial ownership was completed on December 201, 201, but on December 29, 1958 with respect to 722-5 2,648 square meters prior to the division, the registration of initial ownership was completed on December 29, 1958. Thus, the Defendant acquired ownership on December 29, 1958 (the 722-5 2,648 square meters prior to the same Ri was divided into 722-13 square meters prior to the same Ri, 122-13 1275 square meters prior to the same Ri, and 722-14 482 square meters prior to the same Ri, but the registration of initial ownership should have been omitted on December 29, 1958).

C. Determination on the remainder of each land

(1) Whether the Plaintiff is an inheritor of the property of Cho Jong-○, a title holder of assessment

In light of the above facts, the legal domicile of Nonparty 3, who is the ex post facto ○○ and the Plaintiff’s father, on the land before the partition, is identical to one another, and the address of ○○○○, which is the name of the land investigation injury, was “Seng-dong (Seng-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong),” which is the name of the above land investigation and the fact that the address of ○○, which is the name of the land investigation injury, was “Seng-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong.

Therefore, each of the above lands shall be deemed to have been acquired in original condition by the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the network, and as long as it is proved that there is a separate purchaser of each of the above lands, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to each of the above lands shall be reversed. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the above-mentioned registration to the Plaintiff, who is a sole heir of the network ○○○.

(2) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the statute of limitations for possession

The defendant asserts that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is in accordance with the substantive relationship, since the defendant occupied the land of 132-2 square meters on a road of 20 years or more on a road of 132-2 square meters in the Sincheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-do, for the purpose of farming to the non-party 4 from August 30, 1996 to the date of the lease to the non-party 4.

First of all, in a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the above land as the owner's intention without permission without permission, unless there is any special circumstance that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person with the knowledge of the absence of legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission, the possessor does not have the intention to reject the ownership of another person and hold it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention to own is broken (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 197). Further, in a case where the State without a specific title to acquire the above land, such as the acquisition of the property for public use as stipulated in the State Property Act, such as its own share or donation, or the acquisition of the above land without permission of the owner, the presumption of autonomous possession should be deemed to have been broken at the time of acquisition of each of the above land for public use or to have been incorporated into the road site (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da64799 delivered on March 27, 2009).

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of prescriptive acquisition based on the premise that possession of each land of this case is an autonomous possession is without merit without any further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of 365-4 square meters per Dong-dong 365-4 square meters per Dong-dong 27,000, 27504 on November 2, 1995, and 813-1 river 40 square meters per Dong-dong 27,000, 36869 on December 17, 1996, 532-2 river 46 square meters per Dong-si 27,000, 368,000, 275 square meters per Dong-ri-ri 27,000,000, and 17,0000 square meters per Dong-ri 27,000,000 square meters per Dong-ri 36869 on December 17, 1996, the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of the preservation of ownership within 17,000 square meters per Dong-ri 17,000.

[Attachment Subdivision omitted]

Judges Clerks