2. Preliminary Defendant:

A. Attached Form 1 to Plaintiff A.

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is as to each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, while the plaintiff B is the owner who completed each registration of ownership transfer with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 List No. 2.

(2) The Plaintiff’s ownership of each of the above lands owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the instant land”). The primary Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Republic of Korea”) occupied part of the instant land without any legal cause as a de facto controlling entity of the said road, and is unjust enrichment for land usage fees.

Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to remove the road package of the part included in the above adjacent service among the land of this case, deliver the land, and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to land usage fees after December 29, 2010.

B. As to whether the Defendant Republic of Korea occupies a road incorporated into the instant land, it is insufficient to view it as the owner of the said road on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant Republic of Korea is the owner of the said road C road 863 square meters and D road 304 square meters adjacent to the instant land, which is a site adjacent to the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the fact that Defendant Namyang-si established a commercial sewage pipe and a rain water pipe on the above road, it is reasonable to view that the occupation owner of the road, to which the land of this case was incorporated, is the defendant Nam-ju.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendant Republic of Korea on the premise that the defendant Republic of Korea occupies the land of this case as a part of the adjacent contribution is without merit.

2. The conjunctive Defendant’s main defense of the conjunctive Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Southern-si”) is listed in [Attachment 1 List 1].