1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), with the overall purport of the pleadings.

On October 8, 2004, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the area of 554 square meters and the area of 534 square meters in Gangwon-do E (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On October 21, 1982, F completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on October 21, 1982. The instant building is recorded in the register as being located on the ground of the pertinent land among the instant land.

C. Meanwhile, on October 17, 2014, G completed registration of initial ownership relating to the total nine buildings different from the instant building on the ground among the instant land.

F has died, and the plaintiff inherited F. F.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. The alleged plaintiffs asserted that the defendant occupied and used the land of this case without the title to possess the building of this case by inheritance on the ground of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. We examine the judgment, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the building in this case exists on the ground of this case. Rather, according to the entries in Gap evidence No. 4 and the result of this court's entrustment of measurement and appraisal, the building in this case is located on the ground of 46,489 square meters in YY, Seocheon-gun, Gangwon-do adjacent to the land in this case, not the land in this case. The building in this case is located on the ground of 46,489 square meters in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1, and the building in this case connected each point in sequence of (a) parts of the block block structure and (b) parts of the block block structure connected each point in sequence of 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 5, and therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.