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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

A. The Plaintiffs are co-ownership holders of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

B. Each of the instant lands is currently being used as a road site until now.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts that he currently occupies and uses each of the lands of this case as a road without any compensation procedure and obtains profits equivalent to the rent and thereby causes damages to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the rent corresponding to the plaintiffs' share of the land of this case as unjust enrichment and the damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a certain private land is naturally and actually used as a road which is classified into a proposed road site and is actually used for the public traffic, if the owner of the land grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road, or expresses his/her exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the circumstance and period he/she owns the land; (b) the circumstance and scale of selling the remaining land in installments; (c) the location and nature of the land used as a road; (d) the relationship with other neighboring land; and (e) the degree of contributing to the effective use and benefit of the remaining land partitioned and sold (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da7943, May 9, 2013). However, each of the instant land was occupied and used as a site for the road.