2. Korea;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff purchased each of the maintenance and ditches of this case from F on December 4, 1962, and died on January 27, 1974 from the time when he occupied Bori, ancient, etc. on the ground. Since the plaintiff's father G succeeded to the above Eul's possession, and died on November 15, 196 from the time when he cultivated bamboo, bamboo, bamboo, etc. on the ground of each of the above maintenance and ditches, and thereafter, the plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the above G and continued cultivation on that ground. Since the above G succeeded to the possession of each of the maintenance and ditches of the above G, it shall be deemed that the acquisition by prescription was completed on January 27, 1994 after the lapse of 20 years from January 27, 1974, the Republic of Korea succeeded to each of the above G's acquisition by prescription, the owner of each of the above G's own rights, and the plaintiff is obligated to complete the acquisition by prescription as to each of the above G's possession.

2. Determination on the claim for transfer registration of ownership as to each maintenance of this case

A. As to the defendant's assertion that each of the maintenance of this case is administrative property

First of all, the defendant Si argues that since each of the maintenances in this case is administrative property, it shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition. However, even if all the evidence submitted by the defendant is examined, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that each of the maintenances in this case is administrative property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above

B. Determination as to whether to acquire the Plaintiff’s prescription of each of the maintenance of this case

1) Whether the Plaintiff’s possession is possession frequently

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 7’s argument as a whole, it is recognized that: (a) from the time of acquiring possession of each of the maintenance of the instant case from F around December 4, 1962, the deceased E, G, and the Plaintiff occupied the said maintenance in sequence.

Meanwhile, in the case of the acquisition by prescription, the existence or absence of an intention of possession, which is the requirement for the possession with intention of possession, should be determined by the nature of the source of possession right which objectively causes the acquisition by possession. However, if the nature of the source of possession right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have possession with intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. As such, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving that he/she is an possession with intention of possession with the nature of the source of possession right, and the possessor bears the burden of proving that he/she is the owner with no intention of possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Da708,709, 709,

On the other hand, the Plaintiff alleged that the deceased E purchased each of the instant maintenance, and the Defendant Si asserted that the deceased E merely purchased the right to cultivate or manage each of the instant maintenance, thereby examining whether the Defendant’s assertion can be recognized.

According to Gap evidence No. 7, it is recognized that the phrase "real estate sale" was entered into on December 4, 1962 between the above E and F under the title of "the two-party land sale contract".

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), Eul's evidence No. 18 by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ① because the plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of each of the above maintenance, the F would not have the right to sell each of the above maintenance. ② In entering into a real estate sale contract, it would be general and necessary to specify the transfer of ownership on the register of the contract in the contract and to specify the transfer of ownership in the contract as to the transfer of ownership in the contract, and there is no stipulation as to the evidence No. 7 (as the F was not the owner on the register of the above maintenance, it would be necessary to specify the method and procedure for transfer of ownership in the future from the purchaser on the public register of the contract, ③ The non-party H who prepared the above E and the above land sale contract on behalf of the plaintiff was not able to maintain the right to own ownership of each of the above E from each of the above sale of the above E, and no specific statement was made to the purport that the above H had been clearly mentioned.

In addition, as long as the possession of each of the maintenance of the above E is the possession by inheritance, the above G and the Plaintiff’s possession by inheritance shall be deemed to be the possession by the owner. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of each of the maintenance of this case is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the ditch of this case

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the ditch of this case is administrative property, and thus, it does not constitute an object of prescriptive acquisition.

Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides, “Administrative property shall not be an object of prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act,” so that the prescriptive acquisition of State property is completed, it shall be a general property that can continue to be an object of prescriptive acquisition, not an administrative property, for the period of prescriptive acquisition. In addition, even in a state in which administrative property has lost its function and is not provided for its original purpose, insofar as it is not offered for the original purpose, it does not constitute a general property subject to prescriptive acquisition as a matter of course, unless it is abolished by the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, and it cannot be deemed that an implied declaration of discontinuation for public use exists solely on the basis that the declaration of intention for public use is possible by implied means but the administrative property is not provided for its original purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58957, Nov. 25,

According to the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, it is recognized that the ditch of this case was registered as administrative property in the State-owned property ledger. In light of such facts, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the ditch of this case is a general property subject to prescriptive acquisition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Although the Plaintiff alleged that the Republic of Korea implicitly used the ditches of this case, in addition to the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant Republic of Korea has managed the ditches of this case as administrative property in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 50

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.