All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A is the owner, Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “real estate No. 1”) as the co-owner, Plaintiff B, D, E, and F of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table (hereinafter “instant real estate No. 2”).

B. In early 2017, the Busan Regional Land Management Office, under the Defendant’s control, intended to install drainage facilities to the Busan Regional Land Management Office, which was originally a state-owned land, in the vicinity of the instant real estate Nos. 1 and 2, but it is difficult to install drainage facilities according to the plan due to the difficulty in construction and maintenance. However, with the consent of the Plaintiff A, the plan for installing drainage facilities was amended as it was deemed that the Plaintiff-owned land and the instant real estate No. 1, which was adjacent to the said state-owned land, laid an excellent position on the ground of the instant real estate No. 1, which was laid underground, such as the indication of the current status map laid underground.

C. In addition, the Defendant’s Intervenor, who was awarded a contract with the Busan Regional Land Management Office for the “H national highway construction work”, took advantage of the earth and sand generated in the process of performing the construction works laid underground as above at the request of the Plaintiffs, covered the instant real estate Nos. 1 and 2

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (including those with several numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Upon completion of the construction works laid underground in the first real estate underground, Plaintiff A consented to the Defendant’s horse that the existing ditches on the first land located in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, which is a neighboring state-owned land would be disused, and the construction works laid underground in the first real estate underground.

However, the defendant did not follow the procedure to disuse the existing ditches as above, and thus the plaintiff's consent to use the above land lost its validity.

Therefore, it is true.