1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff A and B shared 146,976 square meters of K forest, 12,099 square meters of L forest, M forest, 1,638 square meters of forest, and 7,537 square meters of N forest (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). The Plaintiff and B completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Asian Trust Co., Ltd. on the grounds of trust.

The beneficiary of the above trust contract is Plaintiff C (which is added to the selective plaintiff during the proceeding).

B. The Plaintiff and B were originally owned with E Forest land E 11,79 square meters and 1,207 square meters prior to H. However, on April 25, 2008, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant joining the Defendant for reasons of the consultation on the public land as of April 25, 2008, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendants’ future on the grounds of the trust as of May 21, 2008 or June 17, 2008.

In addition, the Defendants were transferred the ownership of 2,258 square meters prior to I and 2,774 square meters prior to J from the Defendant joining the Defendant on May 21, 2008 to June 17, 2008 (joint ownership) due to the trust held by the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant’s land at issue appears to have been closed as the land development project on October 23, 2015, following the completion of the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s land on October 2, 2015.

C. Plaintiff A and B filed a civil petition stating that the current status of the Plaintiff’s land connected to L forest among the Plaintiff’s land in this case was nonexistent as the O development project of the Defendant joining the Defendant’s Intervenor, and that it would be possible to enter into the land as farmland (the status of farmland). On December 17, 2009, the Defendant’s Intervenor rejected the petition. However, the Defendant’s Intervenor rejected the petition.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they want to build a factory complex on the plaintiff's land of this case.

However, there is a problem.