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

A. G 374 Gyeong-gun G was land owned by Japan on May 14, 1936, 1936.

B. The substitution plan for H district H district was authorized on February 28, 1973 by the president of the Yong-Namnam Farmland Improvement Association, and accordingly, the G G field 374 was replaced with the land of this case. The articles of the land substitution plan for the land of this case prepared around that time are stated I.

C. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 27, 1989 on the ground of the reversion of rights on September 11, 1948.

I died on August 7, 1976, and due to the death of the Republic of Korea, J, South Korea, died in 2017, and the plaintiffs are children of J.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On February 28, 1973, the Plaintiffs asserted that the land substitution plan was approved, and frequently occupied the instant land, and the J succeeded to the instant land upon the I’s death.

Therefore, on February 28, 1993, the possession period of I and J was 20 years and the acquisition by prescription of the land in this case was completed.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on February 28, 1993 with respect to each one-fifth share of the plaintiffs' inheritance shares among the land in this case to the heir of J.

B. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, it appears that Japan J completed the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession of the instant land on February 28, 1993. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that J waived waived the statute of limitations interest by concluding a loan agreement on the instant land.

The fact that the acquisition by possession of State property has been completed and the State and the State have concluded a loan contract with the State, and the State has paid the loan, alone, can be deemed as having declared an active declaration of intent to waive the benefits of the completion of acquisition by prescription