1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From March 1, 1997 to March 1, 1997, the Plaintiff asserted as follows: (a) 3,322 square meters of Yansan-gu B ditch in Jeonju-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) The Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on March 1, 2017 with respect to the instant real estate on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on March 1, 2017, inasmuch as the Defendant occupied the instant real estate in peace and openly with his/her intent to own it, and the acquisition by prescription was completed on March 1, 2017.

B. Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the State Property Act does not constitute an administrative property subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act.

Since "the acquisition by prescription for state property" is defined as a general property that can continue to be an object of acquisition by prescription, not an administrative property, during the period of acquisition by prescription.

In addition, administrative property has lost its function and is not provided for its original purpose.

Even if the administrative property is not subject to the acquisition by prescription as long as it is not subject to the relevant laws and regulations, it is not a general property subject to the acquisition by prescription, but a declaration of intention to abolish the public property can be made by implied means, but it cannot be deemed that an implied declaration of intention to abolish the public property is not provided for its original purpose

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58957, Nov. 25, 2010). The burden of proving that an administrative property is permanently abolished and thus subject to prescriptive acquisition is the one who asserts prescriptive acquisition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da49548 delivered on January 15, 1999, etc.) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 1, 2, 2 and 3, 1, the real estate of this case was completed in the name of the State on July 15, 1974.