1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land of this case is the land of this case between the I, 492, and 390,000,000,000,000,000,000

On September 5, 1946, K had completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on June 5, 1946 under the name of K.

However, as K died on May 12, 1986, Defendant G transferred the ownership registration based on the inheritance of the instant land on June 12, 2013. Defendant H transferred the ownership registration based on the inheritance of the instant land on June 12, 2013. Defendant H transferred the ownership registration based on the inheritance of the instant land on June 12, 2013.

The land of this case is "the land of this case" in all of the land of this case.

B. (b) On August 4, 2015, after K’s death on August 4, 2015, the Plaintiffs, their children, jointly inherited the assets of A in proportion to each of 1/5. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted as the cause of claim, and they donated the land of this case to A, South Korea, on June 5, 1946, which is the plaintiffs' father, to A, who purchased the land of this case, and A received this delivery on September 5, 1946 and possessed it as dry field and possessed it in a peaceful and public performance with intent to own it. Thus, the defendants asserted that the plaintiffs, the property heir of A, have a duty to register the ownership of the land of this case on September 5, 196, which was 20 years from the date of commencement of possession, due to the completion of the prescription of possession.

B. Determination

(1) 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, in cases where the possessor asserts the prescriptive acquisition, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention. Rather, the possessor has the burden of proving that the possessor’s possession does not have the intention to own, and instead

However, in the acquisition by prescription of real estate, it is whether the possessor's possession is the possession with intention to own or without intention to own.