1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The instant land has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of E (F).

B. On July 14, 194, E died on July 14, 194, and succeeded to the property of the deceased family heir G, and on October 10, 197, G died on October 10, 197, and the Defendant, his wife, inherited the network G’s property, but H and ASEAN died on March 29, 1982, and the Defendant inherited the network H’s property.

[Ground of recognition] The records of Gap evidence No. 3, I of Seosan-si, and Jin-Eup of Jin-si as a result of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. On January 6, 1950, Dong K, the father of the plaintiffs asserted by the plaintiffs, purchased from G, the head of E, the head of E on January 6, 1950, the land of this case, and the land of this case, which is KRW 823 square meters prior to M 2,502 square meters and 1,587 square meters prior to N.

On January 6, 1970 after the lapse of 20 years from January 6, 1970, K resided in the above ground building from the time of purchase, and occupied the land of this case, and acquired the right to claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of the land of this case.

The Plaintiffs received from K on June 5, 2015 a claim for the transfer registration of ownership with respect to each of the shares of 1/2 out of the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendant, the inheritor of E, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on January 6, 1970 with respect to each of the instant shares of 1/2 of the instant land to the Plaintiffs.

B. Therefore, with respect to whether K has occupied the land of this case in peace and openly with its intention to own it for twenty (20) years, there is no evidence to acknowledge that K occupied the land of this case by the method of residing in the above building after purchasing the land of this case and its ground buildings from G ( even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the building on the land of this case was destroyed for a long time, and the present state of the land of this case is being used as repair facilities of dry field near the field) and the record of Gap’s evidence No. 6.