2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(2) Since February 9, 1972, including the possession by J, the Plaintiffs acquired the instant land by prescription on February 9, 1992 by occupying the instant land as the intention to own it, the Defendants are obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds thereof.

2. 1) Whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession with the intention of possession or without the intention of possession is not determined by the possessor’s internal deliberation, but by the nature of the source of right or all circumstances related to the possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4455, Nov. 27, 2008) Party 1, 2, and 3, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiffs’ deceased deceased deceased party’s acquisition of the instant land and its ground buildings through sale on February 9, 1972, but completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land only to K of the Defendants’ decedent on July 11, 1974, the fact that the J and the Plaintiffs continued to hold the ownership of the said land and resided therein thereafter.

According to this, after J transferred its ownership to K as the former owner and seller of the instant land, it is deemed that the possession of the instant land by the possession of the instant building on the ground has been converted into the possession of the instant land by the objective nature of the source of title.

3. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion of prescriptive acquisition based on the premise of the possession of the land of this case is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so ordered.