Whether or not the registration period of the inheritee may be succeeded to in the acquisition by prescription of the registry

The registration period for the acquisition by prescription of the registry shall be added to the inheritor and the inheritee.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Republic of Korea and three others

Suwon District Court of the first instance (84dan2186)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed under No. 3301 on Apr. 1, 1967 with respect to the land specified in [Attachment List] (1) through (3), and each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed under No. 37682 on Dec. 21, 1973 with respect to the above land by the Suwon District Court’s receipt of the attached List No. 37682 on Mar. 28, 1981, and which was completed under No. 9089 on Mar. 28, 1981. The defendant 4 shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed under No. 7734 on Feb. 29, 1984.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second trials.

The facts found in the name of the deceased non-party 2 at the time of the land circumstance at 2,474 No. 2,474, which is the gathering before the subdivision of the land listed in the attached list, are not disputed between the parties. According to the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2 (No. 1-2), and Gap evidence 2-1 through 5 (No. 1-5 (the certified copy of each register) without dispute over the establishment, the above answer 2,474, on April 1, 1967, was registered as ownership preservation in the future of the Republic of Korea on November 30, 1967, 35, 763-2, 2, 381, 763-3-3, which were divided into 763-2, 381-2, 763-3, and the ownership transfer registration was made on the land as stated in the attached list No. 2138-1, 1973.

The plaintiff asserted that the land listed in the attached list was owned by the non-party 2's heir, but the defendant Republic of Korea had completed the registration of ownership transfer without any reason, and the defendants argued that the above registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 30, 194 by purchasing from the non-party 2 the answer No. 763 and the answer No. 2,474 prior to the above subdivision from the non-party 2. In such a case, the presumption of rights can be presumed to belong to the above Republic of Korea due to the above fact that the above registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the Republic of Korea, and the defendants must prove the above purchase. First, the above Republic of Korea's purchase of the above land from the non-party 2, the above land was not related to the above land, and it cannot be considered as a material to recognize the above purchase, and the defendant 2's purchase of the above land is merely a defect in the certificate No. 4-2 (No. 5) and the defendant 3 (No. 96) certificate of ownership of the above land under the name of non-party 2).

However, the defendants have a defense of prescriptive acquisition. As to the above 763 2,381, the above 13-2,381, the non-party 1 was transferred from the defendant 2 on December 21, 1973 to the non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 1 were replaced with the land on August 3, 197, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on March 28, 1981, the non-party 2 and 3's heir's title transfer registration was completed at the same time on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 3's heir's 9-2,38-2, and the above 19-2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's heir's title transfer registration was completed on the non-party 2's 9-1, 1984, and the above non-party 2's heir's title transfer registration was completed.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is just in the judgment of the court below, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)