1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. Defendant B shall be located on the C river of 770 square meters at the time of smuggling to the Plaintiff.

1. In determining the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff: (a) occupied, around December 6, 197, the Plaintiff acquired by succession from his father, and occupied, and acquired by prescription on December 6, 197, 20 years after the lapse of 20 years from December 6, 197, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the said land was owned by the Plaintiff.

In order to acquire ownership of land through the completion of prescription 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 prescription that would lose ownership due to the acquisition of ownership should be applied. There is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against a third party against a country which is merely a third party.

In addition, even if the period of acquisition by prescription has expired, it does not directly take effect as to the acquisition of ownership, but 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 the ownership without registration only with the completion of the period of acquisition by prescription for unregistered real estate.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5834 Decided September 13, 2013) The Plaintiff asserted that he/she occupied the land in a state of non-registration in peace and public performance with the intent to own it for twenty (20) years, and sought confirmation that he/she has ownership to the Plaintiff. Examining this in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff cannot seek confirmation of the Plaintiff’s ownership against the Defendant.

I would like to say.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea is illegal as there is no benefit of confirmation, it is dismissed as per Disposition.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. From December 6, 1977, the Plaintiff was in possession of 770 square meters of C river in smuggling-si to the present day in peace and public performance. Defendant B is the nominal owner of the said land on the registry.