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

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 387 square meters in F. F. 387 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the ownership was transferred due to property inheritance, gift, etc., and currently, Defendant B, C, and D own 2/11 shares, and Defendant E owns 5/11 shares.

B. G died on November 19, 1965.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. On May 6, 1985, the Plaintiff’s wife G sold 202 square meters of the section 202 square meters in the section of the ship connecting each point of the attached table Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 2, among the 387 square meters in the Fri field Faro-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, to I on May 6, 1985, and I again sold the said land to J on May 10, 1986.

J continuously occupied and cultivated the instant land from the point of view, and sold 11 million won to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2009. The Plaintiff occupied and cultivated the instant land from that time.

The former possessor of the Plaintiff, J, the former possessor, purchased the instant land from January 1, 1990, and occupied the said land in peace and openly with the intent to own the said land at the latest. The Plaintiff succeeding to his/her possession may claim the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on January 1, 2010, when 20 years have elapsed from the said point of time.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant land on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

B. From January 1, 1990 to the time when the J alleged by the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated and occupied the instant land from the above point to the time when the J sells the instant land to the time when the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the Plaintiff, first of all, as to whether the Plaintiff occupied the instant land in peace and openly with the intent to own the instant land, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land in a health room, as described in subparagraphs 1 and 2-2, part of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3

Even if the J's possession is recognized, evidence No. 2-3.