1. The defendant

A. Plaintiff A: (a) KRW 24,012,50, Plaintiff B and D respectively; and (b) KRW 2,182,954, Plaintiff C; (c) KRW 6,548,863, and Plaintiff E.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 27, 1966, I and the Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/2 shares, on the ground of sale on December 26, 1966, with respect to H 536 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 18, 1972, six co-owners, including Plaintiff B (1/22 shares), C (3/22 shares), D (1/22 shares, and all names: J), E (2/22 shares, F (2/22 shares), G (2/22 shares), and G (2/22 shares) were registered.

C. On November 24, 1969, the land category as indicated on the land cadastre was changed from the land cadastre to the road. Around that time, the Defendant occupied the land of this case by the day of closing argument.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 7

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent due to the possession and use of the land of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring special circumstances.

B. In a case where the nature of the source of right to possess the real estate in the claim for the prescription against the Defendant’s assertion is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of ownership pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. This presumption also applies to the case where the State or a local government, which

However, in a case where it is proved that the possessor has occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission even though he/she was aware of the absence of such legal requirements as to the legal act or any other legal requirements which may cause the acquisition of the ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, the presumption of the possession with intention to hold it

This is the case where the state arbitrarily incorporates the private land into the road site without a title to occupy the land.

Therefore, it is true.