1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiffs' assertion L owned a river of 2,707 square meters in Ansan-si (hereinafter "the land in this case"). As L died on September 27, 1981, the plaintiff A (17/100), the plaintiff B (17/100), the plaintiff C (16.5/100), the N (16.5/100), the plaintiff J (16.6/100), and the plaintiff K (16.6/100) jointly inherited the property through an agreement on the division of inherited property. After N died on January 1, 2008, the plaintiff D (1/4), the plaintiff E (1/4), the plaintiff F (1/4), the plaintiff F (1/4), the plaintiff F (1/4), theO (1/4), the plaintiff's joint inheritance, the plaintiff's death of 16.37/107/270 (O/27/107).

However, the instant land is owned by the State as it is incorporated into a river area of P or Q pursuant to the River Act (Act No. 892, Jan. 1, 1962) or the River Act (Act No. 2292, Jul. 20, 1971, effective as of July 20, 1971 (hereinafter “River Act”), and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay each corresponding amount as stated in the written claim to the Plaintiffs.

2. 1) First, with regard to whether the instant land is nationalized as a river area of P, it is deemed that the health unit and the former River Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5893, Feb. 8, 1999; hereinafter “the River Act of 1999”).

Article 10 of the River Act provides that “The provisions of the River Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a local second-class river (applicable mutatis mutandis), as prescribed by the Presidential Decree,” and Article 9(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the River Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 16535, Aug. 9, 199) excludes Article 3 of the same Act concerning nationalization of a river by listing the provisions of the former River Act that apply mutatis mutandis to a local second-class river (applicable mutatis mutandis to a local second-class river). Thus, even if a land owned by an individual is incorporated into a site of a local second-class river (applicable mutatis mutandis a river), it is obvious that the former owner is not a State-owned river and its ownership is not lost (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Du1597, Mar. 15, 2001).