2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 24, 1996 with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the instant land, and Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 27, 2001 with respect to the remaining portion of 1/2 of the instant land.

B. There are D (hereinafter “instant reservoir”) around the instant land, and the instant bank is used as a bank of the instant reservoir.

The reservoir of this case was created around 1920, and at that time the bank of this case was created.

C. On August 20, 2004, the defendant designated the reservoir of this case and the river flowing from the reservoir of this case as small river (titleF) and announced it as public notice by announcement on August 20, 2004 during the period under Article 3 (2) of the Small River Maintenance Act (the contents of the plan are as stated in the attached sheet) and occupied the embankment of this case as small river area under the

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, Eul evidence Nos. 4-3, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 13 and 15, the result of the entrustment of measurement appraisal to the Cadastral Corporation of March 10, 2014, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on removal and request for extradition

A. The parties' assertion that the bank in this case constitutes a small river area shall undergo the designation and public announcement of a small river area under Article 4 of the Small River Maintenance Act, the hearing of residents' opinions under Article 11 of the same Act, and the procedure for compensation for losses under Article 24 of the same Act. The defendant's occupation of the bank in this case which is owned by the plaintiffs illegally without following such procedure without the defendant's intention to remove it to the plaintiffs and deliver part

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the bank of this case is limited to the plaintiffs' right to use and benefit as small river appurtenances under the Small River Maintenance Act, so the plaintiffs' assertion is groundless.

B. Therefore, it shall be determined by the following: (a) Nos. 1, 2, 13, 16, 18, and 21 respectively; (b) No. 3, 1, 2, and 3.