1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. On December 18, 1971, the deceased on July 1990 while purchasing Ulsan-gu E adjacent to the land of this case, who was the father of the plaintiffs' claim, died in July 199, while recognizing that the land of this case was owned by the principal. After that, the deceased D's heir, the plaintiffs continued to occupy the land indicated in the claim.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for preservation of ownership on the land stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff by reason of completion of prescription.

2. Determination

A. In order to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of completion of the prescriptive acquisition of land on the relevant legal doctrine (Supreme Court Decision 98Da59132, Feb. 23, 199), the acquisition by prescription shall be filed against the owner at the time of completion of the prescriptive acquisition

In addition, the land under the name of a specific person shall be presumed to be owned by the person under consideration or his/her heir, unless there are any special circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain whether the land owner is missing.

Even if it is proved that he dies and there is no inheritor, or if the procedure for reversion to the State under Articles 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Act is not carried out, the land shall not be immediately owned by the State, and it shall not belong to the State.

B. In the instant case, the Defendant did not claim the instant land as owned by the Defendant. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs, it can be recognized that the instant land was registered on the land cadastre due to the circumstance in the name of F on March 1, 1912, and the F died and no heir exists.

There is no evidence to prove that the procedures for reversion to the State have been completed under the Civil Act or Articles 1053 through 1058.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs do not have the right to claim against the Defendant for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of prescription.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed on the grounds that they are without merit.