1. The defendant,

A. 417,213 won and the annual interest rate of 15% for Plaintiff A from December 15, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Basic Facts

A. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), Plaintiff A shares 39/198; Plaintiff B and C shares 27/198; Plaintiff D shares 15/198; Plaintiff E and F shares 12/198, respectively.

B. The instant real estate has been provided to the general public for traffic and passage, and the Defendant occupied and managed it.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the entire argument as to the obligation to return unjust enrichment that occurred in the course of return of unjust enrichment, the defendant provided the real estate of this case as a passage to the general public, acquired profits by occupying and using it, and thereby suffered losses to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment due to the possession and use to the plaintiffs, co-owner of the real estate of this case, unless there is no proof of assertion as to the possessory right holder.

The defendant's assertion 1 is asserted to the purport that the real estate of this case is used as a road site in peace and public performance, and that the plaintiffs did not incur any damage by giving up the exclusive right to use and benefit from the real estate of this case.

In the event that a private land is naturally created or is actually used as a road for public traffic since it was assigned as a prospective road site, if the owner of the land grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road or gives up exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land, the circumstance and scale of the land owned by him/her, the details and scale of the divided sale of the remaining land, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relationship with neighboring land, and the surrounding environment, etc.