A. 1,653,709 won, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, and Plaintiff E respectively, and each of the above costs.

A. On February 14, 1966, G, H, and I completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the F forest size 496m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). G, H, and I completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of Soyang-gu Soyang-gu Busan Metropolitan City F forest size 496m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. G, on April 16, 1966, became the sole owner of the instant land by purchasing their co-ownership shares from H and I on the instant land and completing registration of transfer.

C. On October 9, 2003, G died after having left the rest of the plaintiffs A and his own consciousness, who are the spouse of co-inheritors.

From March 1975, the Defendant’s land of this case from March 1, 1975 to Jdong-dong and Kdong at the latest, is called “the road of this case.”

(A) the land has been occupied and used. [The grounds for recognition: Gap evidence 1, 4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The establishment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment has a duty to return unjust enrichment due to possession and use from May 19, 2012 to the date of expiration of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land or the date of lapse of the Plaintiffs’ loss of ownership inasmuch as the Defendant occupied the instant land from March 1975 to the road and used it as a road, the Plaintiffs, co-inheritors of the instant land, suffered damages equivalent to the rent, while the Defendant acquired the same amount of profit. As such, the Defendant asserts that, insofar as the Defendant did not assert and prove the legitimate right to use the instant land, the Defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment due to possession and use from May 19, 2012 to the date of expiration of the period of expiration of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land or the date of the Plaintiffs’ loss of ownership. 2) The Defendant divided the instant land from the Seoyang-gu M around 194 to the road from that around that time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s side did not raise any objection thereto.

The right of use and profit-making belonging to the core function of ownership is large.