1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be found in full view of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 13, 15 to 17 (including each number, if any, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) The Plaintiffs, before November 30, 2010, acquired the ownership of each of the instant land as of the following shares and owned from that time to the date of the closing of argument. Of the instant land, the land category of which was changed to a road on November 30, 194, on the south-gu Busan Metropolitan City and P 290 square meters (hereinafter “instant Q Q land”) of the instant land, the land category of which was 258 square meters and P 290 square meters (hereinafter “instant Q land”). Since the Defendant incorporated the instant Q land as part of the site installed at that time, it was entering into the instant land into the road (R) and thereafter, there was a high pollution in the general public’s passage.

3) Among each of the instant lands, it is deemed that the land of this case is 60 square meters, T-road 3 square meters, U road 221 square meters (hereinafter “instant V land”).

On February 24, 1962, the category of the land was changed to a road. The defendant, around that time, incorporation of the instant V land into a part of the road site while carrying out W Street Expansion Works, has been entering into the road site for the general public.

B. According to the facts found above, the defendant obtains unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by occupying and using each of the above lands from the time each of the above lands was incorporated into the road. Accordingly, the plaintiffs who are equity right holders of each of the above lands suffered damages equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the plaintiffs seek, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defenses to acquire prescription and the judgment thereof

A. The defendant's defense of prescriptive acquisition is entitled to use each of the lands of this case as the right holder who has occupied each of the lands of this case in peace and openly with intent to own each of the lands of this case between 20 years and acquired prescription.