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

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

1. Basic facts

A. All Q 478 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided into 866 square meters prior toO on April 6, 2017 and 707 square meters in P field.

B. R completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 6, 1949 with respect to the instant land.

C. The Plaintiffs are the successors of S, and the Defendants are the successors of R.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the purchase of the instant land from the network R around 1964, the Plaintiffs’ assertioned that the deceased S (hereinafter “the deceased”) occupied and cultivated it with its own intent.

As the deceased died on September 6, 1982, the plaintiffs installed the deceased's grave on the same day on the same day, and the plaintiff A cultivated the trees by planting them on the land of this case, and around 2014, the plaintiffs leased the above land to T.

Therefore, from January 1, 1985 to twenty years after the time when the deceased started to occupy the land of this case in peace and openly with his intention to own the land of this case, or from September 6, 1982 to September 5, 2002, the prescription period for the plaintiffs' possession of the land of this case was completed.

B. The deceased purchased the instant land from the deceased R around 1964 on the sole basis of the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including the paper numbers) and the testimony of T witness.

or from the above point of view, it is not sufficient to recognize that the possession of the land in this case was commenced, and there is no objective evidence to otherwise recognize.

In addition, it is difficult to view that there is sufficient objective requisition to recognize the possession of the plaintiffs on the land of this case solely on the ground that the plaintiffs installed a grave or planted trees.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion of the Plaintiffs’ respective claims against the Defendants are without merit.