2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On March 2, 2007, the Plaintiffs acquired the instant land ownership from C on March 2, 2007, the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-149 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the same year.

5. 29. Upon receipt of the Seoul Central District Court No. 21719, each 1/2 shares is completed.

B. From 1972 to 1972, the Defendant occupied the land of this case offered the road packaging to the public for use as entry roads for neighboring residents.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 11, and 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing facts acknowledged as unjust enrichment, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs from the occupation and use of the instant land, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as the Defendant, by performing necessary construction works on the instant land, provided the general public with the form of road, and actually occupies and uses it for traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da21517, Aug. 25, 2005).

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The former owner of the land in this case renounced his right to use and benefit from the land in this case, the plaintiffs acquired the land in this case with the knowledge that it was used as a road, and did not pay the property tax, so the defendant does not bear the duty to return unjust enrichment for the use of the land in this case to the plaintiffs. 2) If the judgment on the waiver of the right to use and benefit from the land in this case was based on the relevant legal reasoning, which is naturally created or is actually being used as a road for public traffic, the owner of the land directly provides the land as a road, and the neighboring residents or the general public is entitled to access without compensation.