1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. As to the main claim

A. The Plaintiffs asserted against the Defendant under the premise that they possess or own the part of (a) and (b) part 450 square meters in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant part of land”) among the 18,347 square meters in the Gu-U.S. Do-si Do-si Do-si D Forest land, the Plaintiffs seek cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the primary claim

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs currently occupy the part of the land of this case.

In addition, even though the plaintiffs are deemed to seek cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration against the defendant by exercising the right to claim removal of interference based on ownership, since the plaintiffs are those who have no ownership transfer registration in the name of the network E or the plaintiffs with respect to the land of this case, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the land of this case under the current law that takes a quisition principle with regard to the change of real rights to

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion based on the premise that the plaintiffs are the occupants or owners of the land of this case is without merit.

2. As to the conjunctive claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion F’s subsequent grandchildren paid the purchase price on behalf of the F door, and purchased the instant land portion, and the Plaintiffs occupied the instant land portion as donated from G and possessed it in a peaceful and public manner as their own intent.

Therefore, since the acquisition by prescription was completed on July 6, 2016 after the lapse of 20 years from the date of acquisition, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on July 6, 2016 for the instant land portion to the Plaintiffs, remove each structure of the instant land portion, and deliver the instant land portion to the Plaintiffs.

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs currently possess the land portion of this case, and it can be seen according to the purport of the entire pleadings.