1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the above revocation portion are all made.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 18, 2010, Plaintiff B registered the transfer of ownership for each share of 123/486 square meters in relation to FF road 569 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 1”); I road 255 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 2”); and I road 255 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); Plaintiff A, C, and D completed the registration of the transfer of ownership for each share of 121/486 square meters in relation to the instant land 1 and 2 on the same day.

B. The land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is currently being used as the passage of a vehicle and pedestrians as a road on which the asphalt located inside the house is packed, where the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is currently used.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if there is a ground for recognition) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case owned by the plaintiffs had been occupied by the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case by providing the land Nos. 1 and 2 for public passage. Thus, since Jan. 18, 2010, the date of acquiring the plaintiffs' ownership, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case from Jan. 18, 201

B. (1) The Defendant did not occupy the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and thus, there is no obligation to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs.

Since the co-owners of the land which was divided into the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case voluntarily provide the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case as a road to enhance the utility of the land adjacent to the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, the previous owners of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case waive the exclusive use of and right to benefit from the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and the plaintiffs succeeded to the ownership of the land No. 1 and 2 of this case while the previous owners renounced their exclusive use and right to benefit. Thus, the unjust enrichment against the defendant.