1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A is the wife of the network E, and Plaintiff B is the wife of the network E.

B. The deceased on April 15, 2005, while the deceased owned 44 square meters of F. 44 square meters of a road in Gyeongnam-gun, Namnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) on September 19, 2002, and the deceased on April 15, 2005, and the Plaintiff B succeeded to the division of inherited property by agreement.

C. At around April 1995, Hriuris appointed J, which was the head of Defendant Criuris, as an auditor, and promoted the improvement and expansion of passage routes within the village, by appointing J, which was the head of Defendant Dris, as an auditor.

In order to implement the above traffic path improvement project, the land owned by the village residents included the land in this case should have been incorporated into the site for the passage road.

I and J requested the network E to incorporate the instant land into a village access road, but the network E rejected it.

E. At around April 17, 1995, I and J proposed that Dong Dong E cultivate-do possess a road by Gyeongnam-do and cultivate it in the 116 square meters of the Gyeongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Gyeongnam-gun, the legal surface of the road (hereinafter “instant area”), and accepted the network E, and consented that the instant land should be incorporated into the access road to the village.

F. After the death of the deceased E, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition to the effect that L, the owner of the neighboring land of this case, was at issue with the drainage of agricultural water due to the aging, etc. of the drainage pipe laid underground on the surface of this case. On April 13, 2011, the Jinju Provincial Management Office, the managing authority of the surface of this case, notified the Plaintiff of the restoration to the original state by April 20, 201, on the ground that L, the owner of the neighboring land of this case, was occupying the instant area without permission.

G. Accordingly, in May 201, Plaintiff A: (a) performed a construction project to sell pipelines buried under the ground of this case by taking out construction costs of KRW 1,198,200; (b) around July 2016, Plaintiff A performed a construction project to store stone on the ground of this case by taking out construction costs of KRW 2 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 13.