A. As to Plaintiff A, KRW 468,085, KRW 194,875, and each of the above amounts, from November 28, 2014.

A. The land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) shall have completed the registration of initial ownership on October 16, 2008 by the Plaintiff, and the land listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “instant three land”) shall have completed the registration of initial ownership on June 12, 2009 by the Plaintiff B.

B. Around 1977, the Defendant packaged each of the instant land and provided it to the residents as roads.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of obligation of return of unjust enrichment

A. According to the facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant provided each of the lands of this case to the general public as a road without any legal ground, and occupied and used the land, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent, and thereby, suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs, the owner of the land.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the plaintiffs are obligated to return this as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant asserts that the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land 1, 2 was completed by occupying it with the intention of ownership from around 1977 to the peace and performance of the intent of ownership.

In a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the fact that the possessor did not have such legal requirements without permission, barring any special circumstance, the possessor does not reject the ownership of another person and does not have an intention to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intent to own is broken up, and it is en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 197.