1. Defendant B is based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription on July 17, 2009, with respect to the area of 235 square meters in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, Seoul.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, at least 20 years from July 17, 1989, occupied the land of this case by intention of ownership of 235 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by Defendant B for more than 20 years, may be acknowledged based on the dispute between the parties, or the entry of Gap’s 1 through 6 (including each number), and the fact inquiry by the Nam-gu E-gu Seoul Metropolitan City E-Dong. Thus, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by prescription, and Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on July 17, 2009 for the instant land by reason of the completion of acquisition by prescription.

2. A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State to determine the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea is unregistered and the land is not registered on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of the registrant is unknown, and there are other special circumstances, such as where the State denies the ownership of a third party who is the titleholder of the registration and continues to claim state ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da58738, Dec. 2, 1994; 2009Da48633, Oct. 15, 2009); 2-1; 4-1; 4-6; and 4-6; and the fact-finding with respect to the Nam-gu E-dong Dong of Gwangju Metropolitan City. Thus, according to the result of this court’s fact-finding with the Defendant Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a defendant B. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea cannot be deemed as unlawful.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the lawsuit against the defendant's Republic of Korea is unlawful and thus, it is decided as per Disposition.