1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(However, the part of paragraph (d) of section 8, 9 excluded from the subject of the trial at the time of the trial at the time of the trial at the time of the trial. 【Initial Agreement on Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America” in section 8 6.

The part 7 and 8 pages (1) ① The land cadastre for the instant land contains a statement that the State completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 18, 1941. The land cadastre for the instant land contains the same content as G, H, and I’s land cadastre for the neighboring G, H, and I. The land cadastre for the instant land also became cadastral recovery on December 2, 1963 (it is not possible to recognize the presumption of right on the land cadastre, but can be fully used as a material to determine whether the Defendant has possession with independence) and thereafter was added to the statement that “the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the State of August 4, 1941 (Ministry of National Defense).” However, the land cadastre for the instant land is likely to have actually purchased each of the instant land.”

8 pages 8. (2) At the end of the end of paragraph (2), the plaintiffs asserted that "the plaintiffs are state property used as military installations even if they are based on the defendant's assertion, and since state property is excluded from objects of sale pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership, it cannot be discussed without compensation as to each land of this case, and thus the defendant's intention cannot be recognized even after January 1,

In accordance with this Act and any order issued in accordance with this Act, Article 3 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State.