1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. BC was examined on October 25, 1913 by Sacheon-si BD response 632.

B. BE, BF, and BG completed the registration of initial ownership (hereinafter “registration of this case”) under the receipt No. 9364 on April 22, 1965 by the Changcheon District Court in relation to the 632 of Sacheon City BD response 632.

C. On October 5, 1989, BD 632 square meters was divided into BH 1,937 square meters and BI 152 square meters. On October 5, 1989, BH 1,937 square meters were replaced by the farmland improvement project on October 5, 1989 with BJ 1,77 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

BC died on February 10, 1914 and succeeded to Australia by BK. BK died on June 4, 1930 and succeeded to Australia by BL. BL died on June 5, 1952, and A succeeded to Australia.

After the filing of the instant lawsuit on June 9, 2017, A died on June 9, 2017, and Plaintiff E, F, G, H, and D’s inheritors (her husbands and children of BM), Plaintiff B, C, and D took over the instant legal proceedings.

E. BE died on June 29, 1990.

Defendant 1 through 5 is the heir of BE.

F. The BF died on October 2, 1988.

Defendant 6 through 34 are the successors to BF and the successors to BF.

G. BG died on June 14, 2005.

Defendant 35 through 45 are the successors of BG or substitute successors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 67, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs’ assertion of the instant land is owned by the Plaintiffs by succession in sequence after having been assessed on October 25, 1913 by BC.

The old land cadastre (Evidence B) is only stated in the name of BC that the instant land was jointly owned by BE, BF, and BG, and that registration of preservation of ownership has been made, and the causes for acquiring ownership of BE, BF, and BG are not entirely indicated in the former land cadastre. Therefore, the above former land cadastre cannot be deemed to have properly indicated that BE, BF, and BG acquired the instant land, and the Defendants must assert and prove it.

However, BE, BF, and BG are the previous land of this case.