1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the plaintiffs' claims, B, the lawsuit acceptance of the plaintiff's deceased Gap, 3,125.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment ordering the payment of the paid-in capital was final and conclusive in the preceding suit of the Plaintiffs’ assertion. Since the price and land price that flows over at least six years after the appraisal for calculating the amount of unjust enrichment was conducted in the above judgment, and the property tax was newly imposed on the instant land and the annual increase was remarkable changes after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, in accordance with Article 252(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiffs seek to increase unjust enrichment to be paid to the Plaintiffs from March 7, 2016 to the expiry date of occupation due to the Defendant’s road closure of the instant land or the date of loss of the Plaintiffs’ respective ownership from March 7, 2016 and 2017 as the amount equivalent to the newly appraised rent.

3. Determination

(a) Subsequent to a final and conclusive judgment ordering the payment of periodic payments, when a special situation occurs which greatly infringes on the equity between the parties, as the situations forming the basis for computing such amounts were significantly changed, the parties to such judgment may institute a lawsuit claiming to change the amount of periodic payments to be paid in the future;

(Article 252(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

1) According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading evidence No. 5 in the judgment of Seoul High Court 2012Na39143 decided February 20, 2013, which became final and conclusive in the previous suit of this case from March 7, 2016 to September 21, 2016 among the plaintiffs' claims, the following facts are examined: ① The judgment of Seoul High Court 2012Na39143 decided on February 20, 2013, which became final and conclusive in the previous suit of this case, from January 1, 1981, the Defendant occupied and managed the pertinent area and the occupied area in the annual rent list in the land of this case from around January 7, 201 to September 21, 2016.