1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 14, 1963, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future of the Republic of Korea on January 14, 1963, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 24, 1968 on the ground of the completion of payment of farmland distribution in D on December 24, 1968.

B. On December 11, 2012, the Plaintiffs purchased the instant land in the process of compulsory auction for real estate E-real estate auction (hereinafter “auction of this case”) by Goyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 2012, respectively.

C. The land of this case was located in the F basin and excluded from G from around 1969 to around 1971 (the land on the side of the F Lower depth from the above bank).

F was designated as a national river under the "the name and section designation order of a river under Article 2 of the River Act, which was enacted on April 1, 1963 by Cabinet Ordinance No. 1255, and according to the basic river plan in force in 2001, the land in this case is classified as a F's river area with land corresponding to the land excluded from G.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, described in Gap's evidence 1 through 7 (including each number if there is a serial number), the fact-finding results on the Seoul Regional Land Management Office, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The land of this case is incorporated into F's river area around 1971 and is subject to the former River Act (amended by Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984 after the amendment by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971; hereinafter "the River Act of 1971").

) Since it was owned by the State in accordance with Article 3, the Defendant is entitled to the Plaintiffs on the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Compensation

2) The application of Article 2 to the extent that Article 2 is applied mutatis mutandis must compensate for the loss. 2) Not so.

Even if the plaintiffs purchased the land of this case through the auction of this case, they also succeeded to the claim of D's compensation for damages, which is the previous owner.