logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.05.03 2018가단20998
소유권이전등기
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 1, No. 1, No. 3, and No. 5, the Plaintiff’s spouse D purchased from F the Plaintiff’s spouse E 1570 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) on December 20, 1984, the Defendant’s father G, and C 387 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) are adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff occupied the land from July 15, 1995, by installing a drying house and cultivating crops on the instant land from July 15, 1995, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff inherited this and maintained its status up to now.

The plaintiff asserts that the acquisition by prescription has been completed by occupying the real estate of this case for 20 years.

In order to recognize the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of real estate, it should be recognized that the person who intends to purchase the real estate has occupied the real estate with the intention of ownership. Since a sales contract is concluded after confirming ownership relationship and size by the certified copy of the register or cadastral record before entering into the sales contract, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the contracting party was aware of such fact if the area of the land subject to the sale exceeds considerably the area entered in the public record. In such a case, unless there are special circumstances such as the seller’s acquisition of ownership to the excessive portion and the agreement to transfer ownership to the seller, the excess portion shall be deemed as

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da348 Decided April 25, 200, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da27920 Decided August 20, 2014). However, the area of land owned by the Plaintiff is 1570 square meters, and the area of the instant land is 387 square meters, which can be said to considerably exceed the area of the land purchased by the networkD. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is in possession of the entire land of this case and is adjacent thereto beyond the instant land.

arrow