1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff, as a state-owned land with no owner, was made free of charge by the Defendant for the settlement of the land, and the Plaintiff occupied the part of the instant land in peace and openly for at least 20 years and acquired prescription by the intent of ownership, thereby seeking confirmation of ownership of the said part of the land against the Defendant.

However, even if the period of prescriptive acquisition has expired as alleged by the Plaintiff, it does not directly take effect by itself, and it is necessary to request the owner at the time of the completion of the statute of limitations to acquire the ownership of the land due to the completion of the statute of limitations, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the ownership of the land against the State, which is merely a third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 delivered on May 9, 1995, etc.). Therefore, since the instant lawsuit is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Plaintiff’s assertion that registration in the name of Nonparty B on the instant land should be cancelled as the land cadastre was illegally restored. However, there is no evidence to regard the above land cadastre as the land cadastre was restored, and it is not possible to determine the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim.]