The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

From January 1, 1990, the Plaintiff occupied each land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) in which the Plaintiff had not been registered, while cultivating the land, and the prescription period for acquisition of possession has expired.

At present, although the registrant of each of the lands in this case is written C, it is not possible to identify who has no personal information, and even if it exists, it is presumed that he/she died.

Since the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff, it is sought confirmation against the Defendant, the State.

2. Ex officio determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. In order to acquire ownership of land through the completion of prescription under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, 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, a claim for ownership transfer registration against a country which is merely a third party cannot be filed against himself/herself to confirm that he/she has ownership or

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 on that ground, and it cannot be deemed that the possessor acquired the ownership without registration only by the completion of the period of acquisition by prescription for unregistered real estate.

Even if the land is not registered or its name is written in the forest land register, and it is not easy to grasp the whereabouts and death of the owner or heir because the address of the person under the above circumstances was omitted in the forest land register, such circumstance alone is not sufficient to seek confirmation of ownership against the State, and registration of ownership preservation is not possible based on such confirmation judgment. Thus, a claim to seek confirmation of ownership against the State has no benefit of confirmation.