1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff continued to set up dry field farmers in the instant land for more than 40 years from the 1970s, and occupied the instant land in peace and public performance with the intent to own the instant land, thereby acquiring the ownership of the instant land pursuant to Article 245(1) of the Civil Act.

However, since the land of this case is unregistered and its land cadastre does not contain the address of the assessment titleholder, it cannot seek transfer of ownership against the defendant. Thus, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership of the land of this case against the defendant for the registration of the land of this case.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land upon completion of the prescriptive acquisition procedure.

However, in order to acquire the ownership of the land through the completion of prescription under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, it is necessary to use the method of filing a claim for ownership transfer registration against the owner at the time of the completion of prescription that would lose ownership, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation that there is ownership against a third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 delivered on May 9, 1995, etc.). Moreover, even if the acquisition by prescription has been completed, it does not directly take effect as to the acquisition of ownership, but merely means that the right to request registration for the acquisition of ownership takes effect on the ground of such right. In the case of unregistered real estate, the possessor may not be deemed to have acquired ownership without registration even if the acquisition by prescription has been completed only by the completion of the period

(See Supreme Court Decisions 80Da3121 delivered on September 22, 1981, 2006Da22074, 22081 delivered on September 28, 2006, etc.). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of ownership against the Defendant, which is obvious that he was not the owner at the time of completion of prescription, cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the present danger and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status. Thus, such confirmation is significant.