1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is as follows.

① The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 16, 1968 with respect to the area of 1,415 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun G, G. The said land was divided into 1,219 square meters prior to G, E, 113 square meters prior to E, and H road 83 square meters on July 10, 1985. The said G 1,219 square meters was divided into 1,147 square meters prior to G, and 72 square meters prior to G, and H road was divided into 83 square meters on June 1, 2011.

② On August 19, 1989, the Co-Defendant J (hereinafter “J”) of this case purchased from the Defendant 1,219 square meters prior to the said G, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 4, 1989. On June 3, 2013, the co-Defendant J purchased the said H road 74 square meters from the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 19, 2013.

③ In the instant case No. 2014Gahap54586, which the Plaintiffs sought against the Defendant and J regarding five parcels from the above G to F, for the restoration of the real name, the lower court rendered a partial award on September 23, 2015, that “The Defendant shall perform the procedures for the transfer registration of ownership according to the Plaintiffs’ shares with respect to the size of 113 square meters and F-road 9 square meters prior to the above E,” and that “J shall perform the procedures for the transfer registration of ownership according to the Plaintiffs’ shares with respect to H large 74 square meters.”

(4) However, as the Defendant occupies and manages the instant land as a road, it is necessary to pay to the Plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to illegal occupation.

In this case, the part where the plaintiffs sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the above HJ large 74 square meters against J was concluded by J as a result of the mediation of the purchase of the above land from the plaintiffs.

B. The evidence submitted in the instant case alone is sufficient to recognize that the managing body of the instant land merely appears to be the co-defendant added to the selective defendant in the instant case, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant occupied and managed it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, this case.