1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The real estate indicated in the Plaintiff’s assertion was completed on March 2, 1974, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the Defendant’s future. On March 31, 1986, the Deceased, as the Plaintiff’s attached, believed that the part of the land indicated in the order was also the part purchased, and possessed and used in cultivating dry field crops after purchase.

Since the plaintiff succeeded to and used it from the deceased C until now, the prescriptive acquisition has been completed.

2. Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides that “Administrative property shall not be an object of prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act.” Thus, 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 the administrative property is not subject to the acquisition by prescription as long as it is not subject to the relevant laws and regulations, it is not a general property subject to the acquisition by prescription, but a declaration of intention to abolish the public property can be made by implied means, but it cannot be deemed that an implied declaration of intention to abolish the public property is not provided for its original purpose.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58957 Decided November 25, 2010). Since the real estate stated in the order falls under an administrative property does not conflict between the parties, or it is recognized by the statement of evidence No. 1, (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion for the prescriptive acquisition is not acceptable, since there is no dispute between the parties that the real estate stated in the order constitutes administrative property (the Plaintiff’s defense that the real estate stated in the order constitutes administrative property

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.