1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1, 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, the following facts are written in the land cadastre and the forest land cadastre: (a) B prior to Jinju-si on September 10, 1913; (b) Jinju-si on March 29, 1918; and (c) 793 square meters of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) under the overall title of each land; and (d) the fact that each of the instant land is unregistered real estate can be recognized.

The Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff’s father He (the deceased on January 28, 1984, hereinafter “the deceased”), occupied the instant land in a peaceful and public manner with the intent to own it, and occupied the instant land in the same manner after the deceased’s death and had reached approximately 60 years of possession period, and sought confirmation of ownership against the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription.

In order to acquire ownership of land through the completion of prescription under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, 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 due to the completion of prescription, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of ownership with respect to a third party against himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123, May 9, 195). In addition, even if the period of prescription expires, it is not immediately effective as to the acquisition of ownership, but it is merely the right to claim registration for the acquisition of ownership based on such right, and it is merely the occurrence of the right to claim registration for the acquisition of ownership, and it cannot be deemed that

(See Supreme Court Decisions 80Da3121 Decided September 22, 1981; 2006Da22074, 22081 Decided September 28, 2006, etc.). Even if the prescriptive acquisition period for the instant land has expired, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the acquisition of ownership in the instant land.