1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Pursuant to Article 34 of the former Cadastral Act (Act No. 829), the land listed in the annexed sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) which is actually being used as a farming road was completed with a farming road partition survey, and then the land listed in Section 1 of the annexed sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) around September 28, 1974, the land listed in Section 858 and the annexed sheet (1) of Section 1 of the Seoul-si, Gwangju-si and Section 1 of the annexed sheet (hereinafter “Seoul-si”); the land listed in Section 370 and the annexed sheet No. 2 of the E paddy-si; the F field No. 11605 and the land listed in Section 3 of the annexed sheet (hereinafter “instant land”); the land listed in Section 564 and 11 of the JJ and Section 4 of the annexed sheet; and the land listed in Section 288 and Section 5 of the annexed sheet (hereinafter “Seoul-si”).

B. M sold in sequence to N on December 12, 1974, to N on June 16, 1975, to N on June 16, 1975, to P on November 8, 1978.

Q sold on October 14, 1978 1/2 of each of the lands listed in the Schedule 2, 3, and 5, to R and P, respectively.

Q succeeded from S on September 18, 1975 to the land listed in paragraph 4 of the annexed list list through the consultation and division of inherited property. On October 14, 1978, R and P sold 1/2 of the above land each.

C. P died on April 24, 1995, and the Plaintiff succeeded to both P owned shares among the instant land.

Meanwhile, P purchased on November 11, 1978 and sold 858 P to T on May 19, 1984, among the land divided with the instant land.

In addition, the answer 370 square meters, G 108 square meters, G 564 square meters, J 11 square meters and L 288 square meters sold to R and P on October 14, 1978, R and P sold to U on May 16, 198.

E. A road on the instant land is presumed to have been constructed around 1974, but there remain no data to verify the process of its construction due to a long period of time. At the time, the Defendant did not separately take the procedure for lawful acquisition of the instant land as property for public use. However, R, P, and the Plaintiff, the original owner of the instant land, was the original purchaser of the instant land, and the Plaintiff thereafter constructed the said road against the Defendant.