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

A. E purchased the land of 192 square meters on November 13, 1963, and F road 63 square meters (hereinafter “F road 2”) on December 29, 1964, respectively, from Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu D Road 192 square meters (hereinafter “1 land”).

B. On July 8, 1987, the above E died after having left the Plaintiffs and G as their children, and G died without spouse and lineal descendant around March 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 4 of evidence No. 1

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion asserts that, without the consent of E, the plaintiffs are obliged to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to their rents to the plaintiffs, who are the successors of E, because the defendant constructed roads on each of the lands of this case and provided them to the public traffic without permission.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that E cannot seek restitution of unjust enrichment since he waived his exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from each land of this case.

B. In the event that a reason for waiver of exclusive or exclusive right to use is naturally occurring from the previous one to the road site and is actually used as a road for public use by the general public, if the owner of the land voluntarily provides the land as a road and grants the right to passage without compensation to the neighboring residents or the general public or gives up exclusive or exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, there are various circumstances such as the reason why he/she owned the land, the period of possession, the details and scale of the divided sale of the remaining land, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relationship with the neighboring land, and the surrounding environment, etc., as well as the degree of contributing to the effective use and benefit of the remaining land partitioned and sold.