1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. The amount set forth in Section No.4 of the Schedule of Unjust Enrichment by Plaintiff 2 and this is related thereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the inheritance on June 19, 1966 with respect to each share indicated in the attached Table among Q298 square meters in Ansan-si Q 298 square meters. The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the inheritance on June 19, 1966 with respect to each share indicated in the attached Table among the 182 square meters in Ansan-si R 182 square meters in the attached Table.

B. From August 19, 2015 and September 1, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on a consultation acquisition of public land as to 694260/23 of the instant land.

C. The Defendant is occupying and using the instant land as a road up to now.

On the other hand, the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to each rent from July 27, 2011 to July 26, 2016, which is calculated on the basis of the road with respect to the shares owned by the plaintiffs among the land in this case, is as stated in attached Table 2 attached hereto, and unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent accrued in the future is as shown in attached Table 2 No. 588, attached Table 6.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1 and 3, each of the images of Evidence No. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. Since the Plaintiffs have occupied and used the instant land owned by the Defendant as to the primary claim, they claim that the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay the amount calculated by evaluating the status of the use of the instant land as “on the basis of a deposit basis,” and damages for delay thereof, due to unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from July 27, 2011 to July 26, 2016 on the portion of the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs, from among the instant land, as seen earlier, the instant land is used as a road already used for the public traffic prior to the Defendant’s determination as an urban planning, and thus, the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent based on “on the basis of the rent” cannot be applied. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ primary claim is without merit.

B. (1) The judgment on the conjunctive claim is based on the above facts of recognition, without any legal grounds.