1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. On November 27, 1917, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion C was found to have been 5,355 square meters of forest land B in Kimhae-si, the unregistered Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

C sold the instant land to D, and D sold the instant land to D around 1969 to the Plaintiff’s father E.

The Plaintiff, at least from 1995, occupied the instant land in a public performance and peace manner with the intent to own it, completed the prescription period for acquisition of possession of the instant land.

Although the parcels of the land in this case are written as C, but the address, resident registration number, etc. are not indicated, so it is not possible to identify the registered titleholder in the register.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may directly seek confirmation of ownership of the instant land against the Defendant.

B. There is no benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of ownership against the State, which is merely a third party, to acquire the ownership of the land upon completion of the Defendant’s acquisition by prescription prior to the merits.

C. Under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, in order to acquire the ownership of land through the completion of prescription, 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 due to the acquisition of the ownership should be applied; however, the State which is merely a third party cannot seek confirmation of its ownership or file a claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of prescription

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9218 Decided May 14, 2009, etc.). In addition, even if the period of acquisition by prescription has expired, it is merely merely an effect of acquisition by ownership, not an immediate effect of acquisition by ownership, but a claim for registration for acquisition by ownership is generated on the ground thereof. It cannot be deemed that the possessor acquired ownership by the completion of the period of acquisition by prescription solely on the basis of the completion of the period of acquisition by ownership by means

【Court Decision 2006Da22074, 22081 decided September 28, 2006