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

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

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since the defendant occupied the N. 136 square meters of the road in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter "the land in this case"), which is the plaintiffs' ownership, without any title, and manages the land in this case as the road, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the rent equivalent to the amount of the rent calculated with the land category of the land in this case as the "transfer" as the return of unjust enrichment, and the rent equivalent to the rent calculated with the land category of the land in this case as the "road".

B. As to this, the Defendant used the instant land as a road from 1940 to 1940, and the Defendant continuously occupied the instant land in good faith by succeeding to the occupation of the relocating Management Agency and acquired the instant land in good faith, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant is unfair. Moreover, the Plaintiffs waivered their exclusive and exclusive use right because they did not raise any objection despite being aware that the instant land was used as a road for general traffic, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment is contrary to the principle of trust.

C. As to the Defendant’s defense of prescriptive acquisition, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant’s possession of the instant land constitutes an unauthorized possession, and thus the presumption of autonomous possession was broken.

2. Determination

A. As to the land of this case, the registration of transfer in the name of the plaintiffs (excluding plaintiffs L, M) and the network T and U is completed, the plaintiffs L and M are the successors of the network U, and the plaintiffs A, C and B are the successors of the network T, and the facts that the defendant occupied and managed the land of this case while using the land of this case as a road can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties, or the video of Eul No. 1 through No. 9 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.