1. The Defendant shall acquire by prescription on January 1, 2007, with respect to the Plaintiff with respect to the 521 m21 m2 on the 83m2 on the 521st road in Jeonju-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 1974, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future of the Defendant on November 20, 1974 with respect to 521 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 24, 1974 on the 1,467 square meters of 2 religious land in Yansan-si, Jeonju-si, a Buddhist temple belonging to the Plaintiff, in the vicinity of the instant land, on June 24, 1974, on the 1,467 square meters of 2 religious land, and on the 31, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 31, 2007. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 24, 1974 on the 1,6,04 square meters of 77 religious land in Yansan-si, a Yansan-si, a Buddhist temple belonging to the Plaintiff.

C. The beneficiary is a temple, which had existed before 1974, and the land of this case was included in the land of the beneficiary in the land of this case as it did not form the appearance of the road from any time before 1987.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the cause of the claim is presumed to have been occupied by the intention to own the land of this case, good faith, peace, and public performance from before before 1987 (Article 197(1) and Article 198 of the Civil Act). From January 1, 1987, the Fanchid Seafarers Association, which began to occupy the land of this case by the Plaintiff from January 1, 2007 when the Plaintiff succeeded to the land of this case, the prescription period for acquisition of possession of the land of this case was completed.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 1, 2007 with respect to the land of this case to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant's assertion asserts that the land of this case is not subject to prescriptive acquisition as administrative property.

Article 7 (2) of the State Property Act provides that "it shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act, the administrative property shall not be subject to the acquisition of prescription."