부당이득금반환
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 27, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea to confirm ownership of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 21, 2005 with respect to the land of this case on April 27, 2005. Plaintiff B, C, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 3, 1991 among the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), respectively, on June 3, 1991, Plaintiff B, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 13, 1968 with respect to the share of 280/910, 252/910, 14/910.
B. The instant land was incorporated into the part of the “Road Packing Construction Work” section executed by the Defendant on November 4, 1992, and was divided into 169 square meters of forest land in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu (hereinafter “one land before division”). The instant land was included in the tactical road established in the Gun (JG) as the land category was changed from the previous land to the road on December 10, 1982. At present, both the instant 1 and 2 land were occupied by the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, the fact inquiry of the Ministry of National Defense of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiffs, except in special circumstances, since the defendant occupied the land 1 and 2 of this case, which is owned by the plaintiffs, thereby gaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not support the obligation to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs since the acquisition by prescription of possession of the land 1 and 2 of this case had already been completed.
B. First of all, from November 4, 1992, the Defendant occupied the land of this case from November 1, 199 to December 10, 1982, including the possession of the land of this case by Korea, for not less than 20 years.