1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. In around 1920, Non-party C, who is the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assertion, donated the land of this case from Non-party D, who claimed as the owner of the land of this case, and started to reside on the ground and newly build and reside on the land, and began possession of the land of this case with the intention of possession as its owner, and the network E, which is the plaintiff's reference, succeeded to the possession after the deceased in around 1924, and completed the prescription period for possession (hereinafter "the first acquisition by prescription"), around 1940.

As the net E dies in around 1947, the Plaintiff was not only solely inherited the right to claim the transfer registration on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, but also removed the right after residing on the ground of the instant land, and continuously occupied the instant land while cultivating the instant land as dry field.

Accordingly, the acquisition by prescription (hereinafter “the second acquisition by prescription”) was completed on June 23, 1997, which was earlier than June 23, 2017, as the starting point for possession, even if it was the starting point for possession on June 23, 1997, which was earlier than 20 years before the filing date of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the Defendant registered as the owner of the instant land is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on June 23, 2017, which was the date of filing the instant lawsuit, for the instant land, to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant land was originally changed to the term “seashores” under the Public Waters Management Act (which was amended by Act No. 5914 on February 8, 1999).

At present, it is an administrative property under the State Property Act that falls under the port site pursuant to the Harbor Act, and thus is not subject to prescriptive acquisition. 2) It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land with the intention of ownership as alleged by the Plaintiff’s fleet or the Plaintiff.

3 even if the first acquisition by prescription was completed around 1940, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in the instant case where there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land after around 1990.