1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. Docheon Farmland Improvement Cooperatives was established on January 12, 1970 by succession to the status of Docheon Land Improvement Cooperatives following the enforcement of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 2199 of Jan. 12, 1970 and repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Farmland Improvement Cooperatives Act (Act No. 5077 of Dec. 29, 1995).

On April 9, 1973, the Docheon Farmland Improvement Cooperatives changed its name to the Young River Improvement Association, and was merged into the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation on January 1, 200.

The Korea Agricultural & Rural Infrastructure Corporation was changed to the Korea Agricultural & Rural Community Corporation on December 29, 2005 and the name of the plaintiff as of December 29, 2008.

B. On August 1, 1936, the land category was changed from the paddy field, which was located on August 1, 1936, the land category was divided into a 793 square meters for D maintenance and 93 square meters for E maintenance. On April 27, 2006, the land category was changed to a road on June 18, 2012.

C. The maintenance construction works under H reservoir commenced on January 20, 1959 and completed around August 30, 1970.

As to the land of this case, L (K) which is the assistance of the defendants was completed on April 9, 1940 with the receipt of No. 3452 of Jun. 5, 1940, such as Young-gu District Court Young-gu District Court Young-gu District Court (K) on the ground of sale on April 9, 1940, and the defendants completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on February 25, 1995 as the receipt of No. 8687 of Jun. 27, 2008, each 1/3 shares of each of them were completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was purchased from I who had exercised his right as the actual owner of the land of this case at the time of the time under Article 110(2) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act in order to use the land of this case as a site for the maintenance of H reservoir located in G after receiving subsidies from the State around May 26, 1971, or the rights and duties concerning the land of this case under Article 16 of the same Act.