1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts recognized;

A. Defendant I owns each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant roads), and the Plaintiffs own the same real estate as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”). Each of the instant land is in contact with part of each of the instant roads.

B. On May 30, 2005, Defendant I drafted a letter of performance of transfer of ownership to the owners of the land adjacent to each of the instant roads, which the said owners would transfer to the said owners if they demand the transfer for the use of the said roads (hereinafter the instant agreement).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 16, 24, 28, Eul evidence or video, the whole purport of pleading (including documentary evidence number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) According to the facts of the recognition of the primary claim for ownership transfer registration, the Plaintiffs, who are the owners of the lands adjacent to each of the instant roads, may seek a claim for ownership transfer registration concerning the said roads and a delivery thereof from Defendant I pursuant to the instant agreement. 2) Defendant I’s defense and re-claim against the parties, defense that the claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant agreement expired.

On the other hand, the above right to claim for the transfer of ownership is extinguished upon the lapse of ten years from the date on which it can be exercised as a claim for the right to claim the transfer of ownership. According to the evidence above, the plaintiffs could exercise their right from May 30, 2005 when the agreement of this case was entered into, and it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on April 17, 2017 after the lapse of ten years thereafter.

The plaintiffs' right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the agreement of this case had expired by prescription before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

As such, Defendant I's above defense is reasonable.

As to this, the plaintiffs from around 2005 to the J, etc., who leased each of the lands of this case from the plaintiffs, respectively.