1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.

1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff asserted that the real estate of this case was owned by the non-owner, and the defendant constructed a refuge village in the river site in around 1920 and did not make it free of charge for settlement residents. Since the plaintiff occupied the part of this case with intent to own it for at least 20 years and acquired the plaintiff's ownership by the completion of the prescription for acquisition of possession, the plaintiff acquired the ownership, the plaintiff's ownership is sought against the defendant.

B. (1) The Defendant’s defense of this case is unlawful on the ground that the instant lawsuit does not have a benefit to confirmation, and thus, constitutes a defense prior to the merits.

(2) Even if the period of acquisition by prescription has expired, it does not directly take effect as to the acquisition of ownership, but rather, it is merely that the right to request registration for the acquisition of ownership takes place on that ground, and it cannot be deemed that the possessor acquires ownership without registration even without completing the period of acquisition by reason of the completion of the period of acquisition by prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 80Da3121 Decided September 22, 1981; 2006Da22074, 22081 Decided September 28, 2006, etc.). Therefore, in order to acquire the ownership of land through the completion of the prescriptive acquisition under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, the method of filing a claim for ownership transfer registration against the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription, which would lose ownership due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, shall be the method of filing a claim for ownership transfer registration against the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation against

(3) In light of the above legal principles, even if the acquisition by prescription as the possessor of the occupied part of this case is completed, the Plaintiff does not have the right to claim for registration for the acquisition of ownership and does not acquire ownership immediately. Thus, the Plaintiff is merely a third party.