1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 21, 2003, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 20, 2003, with respect to each of 1/3 co-ownership shares of D 1,254 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From June 1992 and September 1997, among the instant land, a water control officer was laid underground on the ground of 34 square meters inboard, which connects each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1, among the instant land, and the instant land was used as a road leading to the right side of the instant land along with the adjacent road 1,447 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant without any legal ground occupies and manages the land of this case, which is owned by the plaintiffs, as a road, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the occupation and management of the land of this case to the plaintiffs, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant asserts that the owner of the instant land gave up the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the said land, and provided the said land as a road for the general public to free access. The Plaintiffs who acquired the instant land, the restriction on such use and benefit, cannot seek a return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant.

Where a private land is naturally occurring or is classified as a prospective road site and actually used as a road for public traffic of the general public, in interpreting that 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 waives the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, the reasons or period for which he owns the land, and the remainder of the land.