beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revoked part shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 5, 1968, the transfer registration of ownership in G was completed on November 5, 1968 with respect to the 51 forest land in Gyeonggi-do Kimpo-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).
The instant land was subject to registration conversion on September 20, 1993, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, H. 496 square meters on the registry, and became a 496 square meters on March 1, 1995, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.
B. On April 12, 1995, the above G died and jointly inherited the instant land by the Plaintiffs, who are spouse, I and I, who died on April 6, 2004, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the shares of I, thereby owning one-fourths of each of the instant land.
C. On May 5, 1933, the Gyeonggi Kimpo-gun F Forest 60 G. F forest was divided into 55 F forest 5 F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. The land of this case was further subdivided into 5 forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest d. F forest e., May 31, 1940 (fire 15 years).
The instant land was incorporated into J-ro Do 305 around January 26, 1968, and was incorporated into the “L confirmation Packaging Corporation” section according to the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice K on March 2, 1994.
After that, on November 14, 1996, after March 1, 1995, the above land was incorporated into the defendant, the defendant publicly notified that the change of the MM zone was publicly notified by Incheon Metropolitan City, and since the completion of the road around December 31, 1996, occupy the land of this case by providing it for the passage of the general public.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including additional numbers) and Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant, as the road management authority, occupies and uses the land of this case as a road, as long as there is no legitimate source of right to possess, it is the time to file the lawsuit of this case with the plaintiffs who are the owner of the land of this case as unjust enrichment equivalent to rent due to the possession and