All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the assignment of a claim to return unjust enrichment between the Plaintiff and B is invalid as the assignment of a claim mainly for procedural acts.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the litigation trust or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant occupied each of the instant lands as the de facto controlling body, and that the owner of each of the instant lands gave up the right to use and benefit from each of the instant lands as a road accessible to

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the waiver of exclusive use rights, by violating the rules of evidence

2. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that the assessed price should be based on the premise that each of the lands of this case is used in a limited state as a road.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of calculating unjust enrichment.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.