The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) A is about 7/20, and 7/20.

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

This part of the judgment of the court as to the main claim and counterclaim against the land Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have reversed the defendant's presumption of autonomous possession of the part of the land No. 1 and 3 of the case No. 9 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "It is difficult to view that the presumption of autonomous possession of the part of the land No. 3 of the case No. 1 and 3 of the case is reversed" was taken into account the circumstance that the Korea Appraisal Board delegated by the Republic of Korea (the competent Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Seoul Regional Land Management Office) agreed on the compensation for the whole land No. 3 of this case to the plaintiff No. 2 around August 2020 (Evidence No. 20 of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs).

As of the date of closing argument in this case, the facts that the defendant occupied and used the part of the land in this case as a road site as of the date of the closing argument in this case are acknowledged as above. As such, the defendant obtained profit equivalent to the use of the part of the land in this case and thereby suffered loss equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs who are the owners of the land in this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiffs unjust enrichment due to the use of the part in this case's land in this case's land in this case's two land in this case's land in this case's land in this case's land in this case's land in this case's land use as a road site. Thus, the defendant suffered loss equivalent to the same amount. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiffs unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of the part

Nos. 3, 7, and 7 of the judgment of the court on the defense of the prescription of possession and the defense of the counterclaim.