1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the Land Survey Division prepared during the Japanese Occupation Period, the land survey division is indicated as the H’s situation where 2,625 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) located in G was located in G.

B. E-Road 254 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided from the land before the instant subdivision on September 8, 1969, and its land category was changed to the road on the same day.

C. H, whose permanent domicile is in the Gyeonggi-gun Group I, died on November 18, 194, and succeeded to the property solely by the Y. On October 30, 1952, the J died and succeeded to the property solely by the Y K on its own. On October 21, 1953, K died and succeeded to the property solely by the Y, the plaintiff D, the plaintiff A, B, and C, who was his wife on January 30, 2006.

On July 6, 1995, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the land of this case, as stated in the purport of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, evidence 1 to 2, evidence 4-1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The presumption of registration of ownership preservation on the land to be determined as to the cause of the claim, if it is proved that there is a separate person in charge of the assessment of the land, and the registration is void unless the registered titleholder proves the acquisition by succession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da4705, Jun. 24, 2003). As long as H, which is presumed in the plaintiffs' preference, was assessed on the land before the subdivision of this case, the presumption of registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case by the defendant is broken out.

3. The Defendant’s judgment on the defense was accepted in accordance with legitimate procedures, and the land was not so.

Even if the prescription period for the acquisition of possession is completed, the defense is made.

According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his/her own intention. Therefore, if the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, he/she shall bear the burden of proving his/