1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "the Republic of Korea" of the 3th, 9, 6th, 13th, of the judgment of the first instance court; "the Republic of Korea has completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale and purchase" of the 6th, "the Republic of Korea has completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale and purchase under the name of the country"; "the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into River" of the 4th, "the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land incorporated into River" of the 5th, 10th, and 6th, "the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Land incorporated into River" of the 5th, 6th, 6th, "the Act on the Compensation for Land incorporated into River" of the 6th, "the defendant" of the 6th, "the defendant" of the 7th, and "the defendant" of the 7th, and the 4th, 9th, as follows.

[2] The Defendants asserted that the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription of the above land was completed because the possession of the Republic of Korea on the land in this case was the peaceful possession and the possession, which is the duty of possession, and thus, the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription of the above land was completed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs or the fleet had already lost their ownership on the land in this case at that time, and thus, it cannot be recognized as a claim for compensation under the Compensation for Land incorporated into the River Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Republic of Korea could not acquire the land in this case by prescription since the possession of the land in this case was not the possession in bad faith, not the possession in bad faith, but the possession without negligence. (A) The Plaintiffs asserted that the ownership of the land in this case by prescription of the Republic of Korea cannot be acquired by prescription, first