1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 3, 1912, “C” with the domicile in “Seoul-gun, Gyeong-gun,” was under the circumstances of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet (an area of 711 square meters wide and size DD road in Ulsan-gu was divided into each real estate listed in the separate sheet on December 8, 2015; hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

B. On November 5, 1919, the land category of the instant case was changed to “road” on its land cadastre.

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

2. Grounds for the claim;

A. “C” in which the land of this case is located in the “Bri-ri, Gyeongju-gun,” in which the land of this case is assessed, is the father “E” of the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s father E died on September 18, 1978, and the Plaintiff jointly inherited the above E, and the Plaintiff’s share in inheritance is 532/2261.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the Plaintiff’s ownership of 532/2261 shares in the instant land against the Defendant.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the land of this case was assigned to the road site since 1919 when the land category was changed to the road, and was offered for public passage, and the Defendant, from August 31, 1971, designated the road incorporated into the instant land as the Ulsan-Gyeong National Road F, and occupied and managed the instant land in a peaceful manner as owner’s intent to own it.

Therefore, the Defendant acquired the instant land by prescription on August 31, 1991, and the Plaintiff asserted as the owner of the instant land bears the obligation to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of ownership against the Defendant.

B. Where the judgment State occupies unregistered land for twenty (20) years and the prescriptive acquisition is completed, it is difficult to see that the State is in the position to exercise its ownership against the State due to the relationship between the State and the State that bears the obligation to implement the procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of this, and that it is also rendered a judgment on the confirmation of ownership.