1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. At the time of Pyeongtaek-si, the administrative district of Gyeonggi-do was changed from May 10, 1995 to Pyeongtaek-siJ.

C,547 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land before the division of this case”) of the annexed map marks (1) were determined and publicly announced as urban planning facilities (road) by the Gyeonggi-do public notice D on February 8, 1978.

On November 27, 1978, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares of each of the land before the instant partition, and the said urban planning project was not implemented at the time.

On November 28, 1978, the Plaintiffs filed an application for land division with the head of Pyeongtaek-si Gun to divide the land before the instant subdivision into 21 parcel. The land before the instant subdivision was divided into Pyeongtaek-si C, E, or F land, and the Plaintiffs sold the remaining 20 parcels of land except G land (hereinafter “instant land”) to third parties and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

On August 17, 2001, the defendant decided and publicly notified the part of the attached drawing sign (2) as urban planning facilities (road) among the land in this case as H of Pyeongtaek-si public notice.

The instant land is currently used as a passage to the general public.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, appraiser K's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiffs' assertion (1) The land of this case owned by the plaintiffs. The defendant, without the procedure of expropriation or purchase, obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by transferring the land of this case into a road and occupying and using it as a site for public use by the residents' general traffic, and thus, the defendant is obligated to return the above unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.

(2) Since the Defendant’s assertion filed an application for subdivision of the instant land before subdivision and waived the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment due to the Defendant’s possession of the instant land.