1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 1965, the land category was divided into 4,198 square meters in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “B-gu land prior to subdivision”), and the land category was changed from the previous road to the road. On August 26, 2011, B-Do road was divided into 120 square meters in B-Gu road (hereinafter “instant land”) and 25 square meters in D-do road.

B. The Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land on July 30, 1974.

C. The current status of the use of the instant land is the road of 54 square meters in part (A) of the purport of the claim among the instant land (hereinafter “the part of the instant land”), and the remainder is the dry field.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 to 3 (including each number), the result of the request for surveying and appraisal to the Korea Cadastral Corporation by this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff: (a) opened a road on August 31, 1965 on the part of the instant land and occupied it in peace and openly with intent to own the road for at least 20 years; and (b) the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the part of the instant land on the ground of the completion

3. Determination

A. If the nature of the source of possession of real estate is not clear, pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied the land in good faith, peace, and public performance with the owner’s intent under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. However, if the State or a local government proves that it occupied the land without any specific title, such as in a case where the State or a local government takes the procedure for acquiring property for public use as prescribed by the Local Finance Act, such as its own share or donation, or incorporates the land into the reservoir site without the owner’s consent to use, it shall be deemed that the presumption of autonomous possession is broken if it is proved

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64472, Mar. 27, 2001). However, the State is the State.