1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. A. On October 8, 1974, the deceased C around October 1974, on the instant previous land and the instant land adjacent thereto, where the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the registration of ownership transfer or the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D 159 square meters, E 818 square meters, F 52 square meters, and G 1,131 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant previous land”).

B. On August 21, 1996, the previous land of this case was disposed of as 2,449.9 square meters in Gyeonggi-do under the Act on the Improvement of Agricultural Foundation, etc., and on October 21, 1997, the network C completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name on the ground of a donation made on October 13, 1997 with respect to the previous land.

C. Meanwhile, around 196, the deceased C buried the issues and ditches of the instant land adjacent to the Gyeonggi-gun H, Gyeonggi-gun in 1996, and the current state was changed from the field to the dry field. From around 2000, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land as a dry field farmer in the Gyeonggi-gun H land and the instant land.

The deceased C and the Plaintiff possessed the instant land with the knowledge that it was the land owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff occupied the instant land for 20 years retroactively from January 1, 2015, and occupied it in peace and openly with the intent to own the instant land for 20 years. Therefore, as the prescription period for occupancy of the instant land has expired, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on January 1, 2015 with respect to the instant land to the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of the prescription period.

2. According to Article 7(2) of the State Property Act, administrative property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act.

In addition, as long as the administrative property has become an administrative property, it cannot be a subject of judicial transactions unless it is disposed of, so it shall not be an object of acquisition by prescription. Thus, the expression of intent to abolish the public property is legitimate, explicitly or implicitly, unless it is legitimate, but the administrative property is not actually being used for its original purpose.

(b).