A. Plaintiff A: KRW 1,995,652; KRW 1,330,435; KRW 665,217; and Plaintiff D, respectively.

A. On March 15, 1925, the net K is the same month with respect to the area of 172 square meters before the J of Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

5. He shall complete the registration of transfer of ownership by sale.

B. Around 1954, the deceased K succeeded to the land of this case by Australia, following the death of the deceased K.

The deceased L was killed in around 1961, and at the time, the heir was the plaintiff B [the share of 1/9 in accordance with Article 1009 of the former Civil Code (amended by February 22, 1958), the plaintiff A (the share of 3/9 in inheritance as the head of Ho), D (the share of 2/9 in inheritance), C, E, and deceased (the share of 1/9 in inheritance), the spouse of the deceased.

The network M died on October 14, 201.

The heir of the network M at the time succeeded to the network N [the deceased G [the deceased 1/18 (1/9 x 1/2 x 1/2) of the inherited portion] and the deceased on July 18, 2014, the deceased G [the deceased 1/42 (1/18 x 3/7) of the deceased on his/her spouse] and Plaintiff H and I [the deceased 1/63 (1/18 x 2/7) of the inherited portion x 1/18 x 2/7] of the deceased.

C. On June 3, 1957, the land category of the instant case was changed from the site to the road (However, unlike the land cadastre, the land category is still stated in the register of the register), and the Defendant has occupied and used the instant land as a road before and after the time the land category was changed as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including additional evidence) and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is deemed to gain profits by occupying and using the land in this case by providing it for the general public’s passage, and thereby causing damage to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the land in this case. Thus, the defendant alleged that "the land in this case was provided without any restriction, and was managed and used for public in a peaceful manner, so it cannot be deemed that losses have occurred to the plaintiffs." However, just because it is alleged above.