1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs are co-owners of E-road 394 square meters (hereinafter "the land No. 1 of this case"), F road 332 square meters (hereinafter "the land No. 2 of this case"), G road 97 square meters (hereinafter "the land No. 3 of this case") and H road 306 square meters (hereinafter "the land No. 4 of this case") in Gwangju-si.

However, the Defendants, without any compensation or rent, arbitrarily opened a road on each of the instant land and provided it for the passage of the general public, occupy and manage each of the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each of the instant land to the Plaintiffs.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a certain private land is naturally and actually used as a road which is classified into a planned road site or a planned road site for public use, the land owner’s own provision of such land as a road to the neighboring residents or the general public, or in interpreting his/her intent to waive exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from such land, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the developments and period during which he/she owned the land; (b) the developments and scale of the sale of the remaining land in installments; (c) the location and nature of the land to be used as the road; (d) the surrounding land; (e) the surrounding land’s surrounding land; and (e) the degree of contribution to the remaining land for the effective use and benefit of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da1697, Jul. 11, 198; 97Da27114, Dec. 12, 197; 200Da1658, Dec. 16, 2001>