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

A. In around 1986, the Ansan-gun of Gyeonggi-do implemented a farmland expansion development project (hereinafter “the farmland development project in this case”) in the Hansung-gun of Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “B”) in accordance with the former Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 3539, Dec. 31, 1981; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. On May 14, 198, during the period of the farmland development project in this case, the network D (hereinafter “the network”) acquired the ownership of the E- 16,046 square meters of forest land incorporated into the said project site. The said land was divided into two parcels of forest land 9,138 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the land before the instant land substitution”) and G 7,766 square meters of forest land.

C. After the completion of the instant farmland development project, ① the deceased was replaced with the area of 71 square meters prior to H, 542 square meters prior to J, 2,700 square meters prior to K, 2,574 square meters prior to L, and 1,465 square meters prior to L. ② In the land prior to the instant land substitution, a ditch was newly constructed on December 7, 198, and the area of 242 square meters for M, 1,026 square meters for M, 242 square meters for N, and 1,026 square meters for N, and ③ a new road was newly constructed within the land prior to the instant land substitution and registered on December 7, 198 (hereinafter “the instant road”).

The plaintiffs jointly inherited on May 18, 1991 the deceased at their respective 1/6 ratio, and the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of preservation of this case") on the road of this case on September 5, 2006 through the procedures for public announcement of non-owned real estate.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4-1 through 3, 5-1, 2, and 6-9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the road of this case is located within the land prior to the land substitution of this case, and since it was not designated as a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay or reserved land in the process of the farmland development project of this case, the ownership is not transferred to the