A. 8,331,410 won to Plaintiff A, 7,982,449 won to Plaintiff B, 4,056,655 won to Plaintiff C, and 2.

A. The Plaintiff A, B, C, D, and G own each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet from September 13, 2010 to December 20, 2010 to the Plaintiff F, and E, respectively, and the Plaintiff G owns each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet from September 13, 2010 to the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. The Defendant, prior to the Plaintiffs’ acquisition of ownership of each of the instant lands, installed oil pipelines in each of the instant lands and used them.

C. The appraiser H of this Court appraised the amount equivalent to the rent corresponding to the damaged area of each land of this case as the amount equivalent to the fee equivalent to the fee, such as the report on the result of the attached appraisal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, result of appraiser H's appraisal of rent, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition that the obligation to return unjust enrichment occurred, the defendant obtained benefits by installing pipelines on each of the instant land without any legal ground by occupying and using them, and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiffs who are the owners of each of the instant land. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs due to the occupancy and use of each of the instant land.

3. The unjust enrichment that the owner of a structure gains from the landowner is, in principle, the amount equivalent to the rent for the underground portion, as a result of the appraisal and assessment of the amount equivalent to the rent for each of the lands of this case as stated above.

In this regard, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that it is unfair for appraiser H to calculate the basic price of each land of this case through the purchase price sold between private persons. However, according to Article 14(2)5 of the Rules on Appraisal and Evaluation, the Plaintiffs should consider the normal transaction cases where the formation of value in the neighboring area of the land subject to appraisal or in the same and similar area within the same right to receive benefits is similar, and the appraisal method by