All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiffs: (a) on December 26, 1988, owned each share of 41,217 square meters and G forest 24,233 square meters in Busan-gu, Busan-do; (b) on December 26, 1988, the Defendant and the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the content that 73 square meters in the above F forest as a site for transmission towers; (c) 2,559 square meters in the above G forest as a site for transmission towers; and (d) as a site for transmission towers, 1,816 square meters and 1,190 square meters in the above G forest as a site for transmission towers; and (e) leased 15,124,440 square meters in the above rent as a rent; and (e) paid KRW 15,124,40 in the above rent as a rent.

(hereinafter. (hereinafter, this case’s lease contract). Of September 22, 1989, with respect to the above G forest, the transfer registration for shares of 720/24,233 out of the said G forest was completed on September 11, 1989 in the future by the Defendant for the acquisition of public land on September 11, 1989, and the area of G forest was divided into 720 square meters in H miscellaneous land on March 12, 1991, and became 23,513 square meters in size.

Plaintiff

E on May 26, 2005, among the above G forest and H miscellaneous land, the transfer registration was completed on May 25, 2005 under the joint name of I, J, and K as children with respect to the shares of each Plaintiff E during the above G forest and H miscellaneous land.

On the other hand, the actual area of not transmitting lines installed in the above F forest is 2,886.8m2, and the actual area of not transmitting lines installed in the above G forest is 3,409m2, and the area of not transmitting lines installed in the above H miscellaneous land is 191.7m2 and the area of the transmission tower is 22m2m2.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, appraisal result of appraiser L, the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion in the purport of the entire argument is that the defendant occupies and uses the above FF forest without permission exceeding the area leased under the instant lease agreement (=2,886.8m2,59m2), and 403.9m2 in the case of the above G forest [3,409m2] - 3,006m2 (=1,190m2) in the case of the above G forest (=3,409m2). The defendant occupies and uses the above H miscellaneous land without permission without permission without permission, and without permission any legitimate right, such as the right of lease, and the 191m2 in the case of the above H miscellaneous land.