1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 1963, the name of F was entered on May 11, 1965 in the column of the owner of the cadastral restoration forest land with respect to the Gyeonggi-do EM Forest Land 917 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The owners of the above parcels of co-ownership delay list include the names of the plaintiffs due to the change of name on October 8, 1991.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that they acquired ownership of the instant land for the following reasons, and thus seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs were registered in the joint delay list or inheritance Plaintiffs registered in the joint delay list of land cadastre as to the instant land and succeeded to the shares of 1/4 of the instant land from F, as well as F, F, the former owners.

B. The Plaintiffs acquired ownership due to the completion of the statute of limitations for possession by occupying the instant land in peace and openly with the intent to own it for at least 20 years.

3. The Defendant’s judgment on this safety defense may be deemed as having been entered into the land cadastre and restored to the owner. Thus, the Defendant asserts that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the Defendant. However, in a case where there is a person who has been registered or recorded as an owner in the register of land or the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, if he/she obtains a final and conclusive judgment confirming that the relevant real estate is owned by the applicant for registration of preservation, he/she may apply for registration of preservation of ownership. As such, in principle, there is a benefit in the claim for confirmation of ownership against the title holder. However, if the presumption of right against the owner in the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre is not recognized, he/she has no choice but to request confirmation of ownership against the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da45944