1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. The court's explanation of this case is as follows: Gap's statements and videos of Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 14 (including serial numbers) which are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as additional evidence submitted by the court of first instance; and it is identical with the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part used or deleted as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 3th to 4th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

“Public waters are so-called natural public waters, which are themselves provided for the direct use of the public, so even if part of the public waters were substantially reclaimed and siteized, they still have the nature of public waters as long as the State does not abolish them as public waters (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du2764, Jun. 13, 2013). Although an expression of intent to abolish public waters is not only explicitly expressed but also implied expression of intent, it is insufficient to recognize that the public waters are not actually used for the original purpose, or that the administrative body has lost possession, the existence of an intention to abolish public waters objectively by taking into account the surrounding circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da87538, Dec. 10, 209; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du2764, Apr. 25, 1995).

Since "the acquisition by prescription for state property" is stipulated as "the acquisition by prescription period for state property shall be completed."