1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 10, 1994 with respect to the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to C Dae-gu, Jeju-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), on May 20, 1995, the registration of preservation of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on May 20, 1995 with respect to the 46.28 square meters of a single-story in the ground wooden roof (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”).

B. Of the land size 133,080 square meters in Annex 1, 2, 3, and 1, the part (a) and 49.58 square meters in part (hereinafter “the part in dispute of this case”) are connected to the Plaintiff’s land in Jeju-si, which is an administrative property. The part in the dispute of this case pertaining to the dispute of this case is in contact with the Plaintiff’s land. There are “a light shed” and “the main gate of the Plaintiff’s building.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry or video of Gap's Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 (including virtual numbers), the result of an appraisal commission to the head of the Korea Land Information Corporation's branch office in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on November 1, 2017, after the lapse of twenty (20) years from October 31, 1997, on the ground of the expiration of the prescriptive acquisition period, since the Plaintiff occupied the part of the instant dispute in peace and openly with intent to own it for at least twenty (20) years as the site of the Plaintiff’s building.

B. Notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act, administrative property is not subject to the acquisition of prescription (Article 7(2) of the State Property Act), and according to the above fact of recognition, the part of the dispute in this case is administrative property, and it cannot be subject to the acquisition of prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without reason to examine further.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.