1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 20, 198 on the ground of the succession of property on May 1, 198, 198 and manages Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mro 3444.5 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case") as the property for public use among the administrative property.

B. On November 29, 1976, the Defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the 360.8 square meters of roads n.8 square meters of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the land No. 2”), and manages it as the property for public use among the administrative property.

C. Plaintiff A owns the buildings respectively on Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu P, Plaintiff Q, Plaintiff C, R, Plaintiff D, and E, Plaintiff G, H, and I respectively on the ground of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Plaintiff

Each of the above buildings owned by A, B, C, D, and E is part of the land of this case, as indicated in the “design Display” column in the attached Table 1 list, and the building owned by Plaintiff G, H, and I is part of the land of this case, as indicated in the attached Table 2 list.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9, 11 (including each number), the result of the appraisal commission to U.S. of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The land category Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is the road, and the Defendants manage it as public property. However, since the Defendants failed to meet the statutory requirements as a road and did not commence public use, it should be deemed general property subject to prescriptive acquisition. 2) Since the Plaintiffs succeeded to possession from the former owners of each building owned by the Plaintiffs and occupied part of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case as the site for the building, they acquired by prescription each of the relevant land on the date of prescriptive acquisition in the attached Tables 1 and 2.

B. Article 7(2) of the State Property Act and Article 6 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act are subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act.