1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the land of this case was acquired by Non-Party B on August 30, 1912 by the Plaintiff’s ownership. Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s wife, around 1930, purchased 50,000 won of each of the instant land from Non-Party D (Aar’s son E). From around 1970 to 20 years, the Plaintiff cultivated each of the instant land as a dry field and occupied it in a peaceful and public manner with the intention to own it for at least 20 years.

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant lands on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition, and as such, the “B” as indicated in the name of the assessment titleholder of each of the instant lands is not specified, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership against the Defendant.

B. Under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, in order to acquire the ownership of land through the completion of prescriptive acquisition, 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 one has ownership against the State, which is merely a third party.

In addition, even if the period of acquisition by prescription has expired, it is not merely an effect of the acquisition by ownership, but it is merely an occurrence of the right to request registration for the acquisition of ownership based on this cause, and it cannot be deemed that the possessor acquires the ownership without registration only by completing the period of acquisition by prescription.

Such a legal principle is omitted in the land cadastre from the address of the person who is considered as the land owner.

The same applies to cases where there is no certified copy of the title holder’s expulsion from the situation and there is no other method to specify it.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da9218 Decided May 14, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5834 Decided September 13, 2013, etc.).

Judgment

Modern, the plaintiff, even if any.