beta
Text
1. The Defendants indicated each of the pertinent shares indicated in the attached Form among the 126.5 square meters in Jinju-si, U.S. 126.5 square meters to the Plaintiff on June 16, 2010.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendants’ status as the Defendants is the final heir of the networkV (Death on December 17, 1978) and the inheritance shares are as indicated in the separate sheet.
B. On December 26, 193, the Deceased, etc., registered the ownership transfer registration with respect to WW large 470 square meters (the conversion of the area into the 1,550 square meters on February 18, 1977) (the conversion of the area into the 1,550 square meters on February 18, 197). 2) On November 22, 1991, part of WW large 470 square meters in Jinju-si was 126.5 square meters in Jinju-si (hereinafter “instant site”).
C. (1) On May 16, 1989, Jin-si X changed its lot number to Y in Jin-si. On April 1, 1990, the name of Jin-si was changed to Y, and on October 11, 1993, the division was changed to the instant site. (2) On January 17, 1987, Jin-si moved to X in Jin-si, and continued to reside without changing its place of residence, and died on June 15, 1990.
3) On November 17, 1969, the Plaintiff had been registered of birth in X, Jin-si, Jin-si, and had resided in the above address until now, and paid property tax imposed on the instant site from 2005. (c) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Republic of Korea. On July 4, 2016, the Changwon District Court decided to recommend reconciliation with the purport that “the Republic of Korea confirms that the instant site is owned by the Defendants in proportion to their respective shares indicated in the separate sheet,” and the said decision to recommend reconciliation was finalized on July 19, 2016. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there was no dispute, significant fact, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including each number, witness A’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.
2. Where the occupancy, which serves as the basis of the determination on the cause of the claim, continues to exist over the statutory period, the time when the possession, which is the basis of the claim, commences shall be the starting point, and the person who claims the prescriptive acquisition, shall arbitrarily commence.