1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the Land Survey Board for the Gyeonggi-gun prepared in September 21, 191 by the Joseon General Co., Ltd. and the Provisional Land Survey Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Temporary Land Survey Board”), N (N and Address Nos) reported the Provisional Land Survey Board on September 21, 191 to be owned by the Gyeonggi-gun, and entered into an investigation as owned by the said Ministry on September 21, 191.

B. On December 9, 1976, the land cadastre of each of the above lands drawn up by the temporary land survey station after the above land survey project was destroyed, and the new land cadastre was drawn up on December 9, 1976, and each of the above land cadastre remains in an unreaped state. P was registered as the owner on January 12, 1978.

C. The land category of each of the above lands was changed to a river on August 6, 1984, and registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of the Republic of Korea on February 19, 1986.

After that, following the change of the administrative district converted into a subdivision, etc., ① 2,165 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun L Forest land 2,165 square meters in a 104,771 square meters in Q 104,771 square meters in Q 104,771 square meters in Gyeonggi-1, and ② 5,295 square meters in a 25,816 square meters in a river in the same M 25,816 square meters in the same manner, ② 274 square meters in a 274 square meters in Gyeonggi-1, Nam-si, Gyeonggi-si.

(hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 21, fact-finding results to the National Land Management Office of the court of the relevant trial, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs were the owners of each of the instant land by N prior to August 6, 1984, and each of the instant land was incorporated into a river area and lost its ownership. As such, the Defendant was subject to the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into River (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

) The author argues that N should pay compensation for losses to the plaintiffs who succeeded to N in succession in accordance with Article 2.

B. The defendant transferred ownership to a third party after N received assessment of each land of this case before being transferred to a river area.