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

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

A. As to the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 on December 24, 2003, Plaintiff A is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer in his own future with respect to the land listed in the same list Nos. 2 on August 20, 1993 (hereinafter “each land listed in the separate sheet”)

B. At around August 4, 1960, the U.S. military installed the Korean-style oil pipelines for oil transport (hereinafter “instant oil pipelines”) in accordance with subparagraph 456 of the Construction Schedule Notice as of August 4, 1969, and part of the said pipelines were laid underground.

C. The oil pipelines in this case were managed by the U.S. military until June 1992, and the defendant received from the U.S. military since 1992, and managed by the Ministry of National Defense under the defendant's control until now.

Before 199, the Defendant moved the instant pipelines to a national highway No. 1, and closed the oil pipelines buried on each of the instant lands.

The land of this case was completed on April 27, 191, and there is a building of the third underground floor size with the third underground floor size. The land of this case was completed on January 5, 1994.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 14 (including each number), and the result of the inquiry and reply to the Chief of Staff at the Army of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant laid underground the oil pipelines of this case on each ground of the land of this case, and gain profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using each land of this case, and that the plaintiffs suffered damages for which the exercise of land ownership is limited, and they seek against the defendant for payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the removal of the oil pipelines of this case, the delivery of each land of this case, and the delivery of the above land by the date of delivery.

(2) As to this, the Defendant is not only unclear whether the oil pipelines of this case are still laid underground on each of the instant lands, but also the present case.