1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On June 29, 1974, the Plaintiff purchased a hub C-B house on the ground of Busan Seo-gu, Busan from B, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land for 40 years in a peaceful and public performance manner without gathering the fact that part of the site was extended to the land indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. B purchased the instant land from B, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from B, and the Plaintiff’s right to use the property acquired by the Plaintiff as an individual transaction between individuals and then the State did not acquire by prescription on the ground that it was an administrative property by making use of the property donated to the State.

C. Based on the retaining wall located in the vicinity of the instant land, the instant land was divided into the land located in the D Middle School playground and the Plaintiff’s housing, and the instant land was not used as a school site because it was located on the side of the Plaintiff’s housing based on the retaining wall, and thus, the instant land was demolished for public use or donated to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant land on the ground of the completion of acquisition by prescription.

2. Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides, “Administrative property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act,” so, in order to complete the prescriptive acquisition of State property, the State property must be a general property that can continue to be an object of prescriptive acquisition, not an administrative property, for the period of prescriptive acquisition.

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

Even if there is no abolition of the relevant laws, it is not a general property subject to the acquisition by prescription, but a declaration of intention to abolish public use can be made by implied means, but the administrative property is not provided for its original purpose.