1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff asserts that on October 23, 1973, the deceased, the deceased's decedent, purchased 2,500 square meters of the E-do river in Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-do, and the purchase land included the land of this case, but the copy of the register contains the land of this case, so the land of this case is owned by the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to sale on October 23, 1973.

However, even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, C purchased the instant land from D. Thus, it is not reasonable to seek a procedure for ownership transfer registration on October 23, 1973 against the Defendant, who is not a party to a sales contract, due to sale and purchase.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession, and the decision on this, the plaintiff asserts that the land in this case was abolished in the late 1980s and occupied as the plaintiff's intention, and that the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on

On the other hand, the administrative property cannot be a subject of private transaction unless the public use is abolished, and thus is not subject to the acquisition by prescription. The expression of intention of abolition of the public use requires legitimate declaration of intention, whether explicitly or implicitly, and the fact that the administrative property is not actually used for its original purpose cannot be viewed as having expressed the intention of disuse. The burden of proving the fact that the administrative property is abolished for public use and is subject to the acquisition by prescription is the Plaintiff who asserts the acquisition by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da5620, Mar. 22, 1994). The instant land became a general property subject to the acquisition by prescription.

Since there is no evidence to prove that there was an expression of intention to discontinue the public use or that there was an expression of intention to discontinue the public use, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without need to further