1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 9, 1973, Liberal Land Improvement Cooperatives changed into liberal Farmland Improvement Association. The property and other rights and obligations of liberal Farmland Improvement Association were comprehensively transferred to the Plaintiff as the former Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act (Law No. 5759, Feb. 5, 199) went into effect.

The name of the plaintiff was the Korea Agricultural & Rural Infrastructure Corporation first, and the name of the plaintiff was changed to the current Korea Agricultural & Rural Community Corporation.

B. The following are the following: (a) the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 926 square meters in Gu, Si, U.S. (from 467 square meters in Gu, Si, U.S., E, to July 3, 1969).

The defendant C, on March 4, 2015, who purchased and sold the following: (a) on February 3, 1926, No. 973, May 5, 1924; (b) on January 20, 206, Defendant A, who inherited the property subject to consultation and division on April 27, 2006, No. 44298, Jul. 6, 2012; (c) donated on June 25, 2012 by Defendant B, No. 1762, Mar. 11, 2015;

C. The land category of this case was the original answer, and was changed to the maintenance on May 31, 1975, and was the site of “G” established in the Japanese land of this case.

G was completed in 1967, and registered as agricultural infrastructure on January 31, 1978 and maintained and managed by the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On June 7, 1965, the Plaintiff asserted that the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land was completed on June 7, 1985, as the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from F on June 7, 1965, and occupied and used the instant land as G’s site.

Since the Plaintiff commenced possession of the instant land around June 7, 1965, the fact that the Plaintiff continues to possess the instant land as part of G does not conflict between the parties, and the Plaintiff’s possession is presumed to have been peaceful and openly held as its owner’s intent. As such, the Plaintiff’s prescriptive acquisition on the instant land was completed on June 7, 1985 after the lapse of 20 years from June 7, 1965, which was the starting date of possession of the Plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant.