1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion and its judgment

A. On March 25, 1989, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion purchased F orchard 24,635 square meters in Dongdaemun-si, Yongsan-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on or around April 14, 1989.

원고는 이 때부터 피고 대한민국 소유의 E 도로 5,504㎡ 중 별지 도면 표시 ㅈ 부분 1,575㎡, ㅋ 부분 620㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 제1계쟁토지’라 한다), 피고 경상북도 소유의 C 임야, D 임야 중 별지 도면 표시 ㄹ 부분 636㎡, ㅁ 부분 806㎡, ㅅ 부분 362㎡ 부분(이하 ‘이 사건 제2계쟁토지’라 한다)도 원고가 매수한 토지의 일부로 알고 평온, 공연히 점유하며 농사를 지어왔다.

Therefore, around April 14, 2009, after the lapse of 20 years from April 14, 1989, which was the starting point of possession of the Plaintiff, the period of prescription for the Plaintiff’s possession of the land of this case Nos. 1 and 2 was completed.

B. Determination 1) Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides that “Administrative property shall not be an object of prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act.” Thus, in order to complete the prescriptive acquisition of State property, such State property shall be a general property that may continue to be an object of prescriptive acquisition, not an administrative property, during the period of the prescriptive acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19528, Dec. 10, 2009). Furthermore, even in a state where administrative property is lost its function and is not provided for its original purpose, insofar as it does not fall under the category of general property subject to the prescriptive acquisition, as long as it does not become an object of the prescriptive acquisition, and it cannot be deemed that there exists an implied declaration of intention of permanent abolition solely on the basis that the administrative property is possible by implied means but is not provided for its original purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5897, Nov. 25, 2010).