1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 1973, 1973, each of the above land was merged into 3,174 square meters in Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter "the land before subdivision") after the cooperative Jin-do, Inc. acquired the ownership of each land in J and J. The land was merged into 1,174 square meters in Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter "the land before subdivision").

B. On November 7, 1974, part of the land before subdivision (the corresponding part of the land in this case below) was decided to install road planning facilities L as Busan City Public Notice K on November 7, 1974.

C. In accordance with the application for partition of the cooperative development zone, the land before subdivision was divided into 14 lots of land from I, M, and N on December 22, 1987, and among which the land category was changed to the road on the same day on the same day.

(hereinafter, divided H land is referred to as “instant land”). D.

The cooperative Jin-do sold 13 lots, other than the instant land, divided into 13 lots, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 1987 to the O and 12 persons. Since the building was newly constructed on each of the above lands, the instant land has been used as the owner of the said divided 13 lots and for the passage of the general public.

E. The shape of the instant land is identical to that of the right drawing.

F. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) received shares of 36/100, 19/100 for Selection B, 3/100 for Selection C, 17/100 for Selection C, 5/100 for Selection E, 16/100 for Selection, 16/100 for Selection F, 16/100 for Selection and 4/100 for Selection G, and 4/100 for Selection G, and acquired its ownership.

【The grounds for recognition” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”). 【The Plaintiff, etc.,” and the designated parties, have no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 7, Gap 3 through 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 24, Gap, 8, 9, 15, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1, 2 and 3, Eul evidence 4-1, each of the statements and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1 et al. asserts that the plaintiff et al. suffered unjust enrichment from the clinical party by occupying the land of this case without any title to the road, and thereby, the plaintiff is equivalent to the same amount.