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 March 13, 1979, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future of the Republic of Korea on the land of 1,243 square meters in Jinju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The F, which possessed a part of the instant land, agreed that the share equivalent to the portion possessed by the State should be the same as that of the said land, and accordingly, on August 28, 1984, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the sale on April 27, 1984 with respect to the share 155/1,243 out of the instant land.

C. On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by subrogation in the future of Defendant B with respect to F’s 155/1,243 shares in the instant land, as to F’s 155/1,243 shares on the ground of inheritance of property as of May 11, 1984.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that F purchases F’s occupied portion from F on April 1, 1984 and its ground and occupies F’s land in peace and openly with its own will until now.

On the other hand, F was deceased on May 11, 1984 and succeeded F to F in proportion to the ratio of 930/13,673, Defendant C in 155/13,673, Defendant D in 620/13,673, and Defendant D in 620/13,673, and the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on April 1, 2004 with respect to the share of 155/1,243 out of the land of this case on the ground of the completion of the prescription for the acquisition of possession on April 1,

B. The following circumstances, i.e., witness H’s testimony and the overall purport of pleading, which may be acknowledged by the witness H’s testimony and the entire purport of pleading, i.e., (i) although the witness H, together with F and witness G, did not go to the Plaintiff even though he did not receive some of the instant land from the State to the present day, he did not know about the Plaintiff, and (ii) the F did not have the said land share to the Plaintiff.