1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 23, 1911, the land cadastre of the instant case is indicated by H as owned by H on the assessment of the said land.

B. The instant land is unregistered.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. After purchasing the instant land from H on or around February 1964, the network I alleged the cause of the Plaintiffs’ claim, and subsequently donated the said land to the deceased J. The Plaintiffs received inheritance of the deceased J’s property.

The net J from February 1964 to 20 years from 1964, occupied the above land in peace and openly with the intent to own it, and the acquisition by prescription for the above land was completed on March 1, 1984.

However, since the land of this case is unregistered, and H, the land cadastre owner of the above land, cannot be specified, the plaintiffs seek confirmation against the defendant as to whether the land of this case is owned by the plaintiffs.

3. According to Article 245(1) of the Civil Act regarding the legality of the instant lawsuit, in order to acquire the ownership of land through the completion of prescriptive acquisition 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, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation that only a third party has ownership.

In addition, even if the period of acquisition by prescription has expired, it does not directly take effect as to the acquisition of ownership, but it is merely that the right to request registration for the acquisition of ownership takes place on that ground, and it cannot be deemed that the possessor acquires the ownership without registration only with the completion of the period of acquisition by prescription for unregistered real estate.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5834, Sept. 13, 2013). Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, the acquisition by prescription of the deceased J on the instant land was completed, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiffs.

Even if so, it does not directly take effect of the acquisition of ownership, but the completion of prescription.