1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Each of the lands of this case (the above land was originally "Seoul Gdong," which was changed to "Seoul Seocho-gu Gdong on January 1, 1988 due to the change of administrative district name) was registered by commission in the name of I on January 12, 1981 pursuant to Article 16 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 3642 of December 31, 1982, and repealed by Act No. 6252 of January 28, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to Article 16 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 6252 of January 28, 200).

B. The land substitution details of each of the instant lands are as follows:

After replotting of the land before replotting, the lot number, land category, land category (p) size, J-J 144 K 83.2 L, 144 M. 7.4 N, 144 O 81.3 P 137 Q 65 prior to the 137.3 P

C. Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government constructed a road on each of the instant lands from January 1, 1981, which was completed by a land readjustment project of H district, and the defendant succeeded to Gangnam-gu and continuously occupies and manages each of the instant lands until now.

On July 6, 199, I died on July 6, 199, and the plaintiffs, their successors, jointly inherited the property of the deceased I according to their legal shares.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entries and videos of Gap's 1 through 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, from January 1, 1981, when the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the defendant occupied and managed each of the instant land from the date when the H District Land Readjustment Project was completed to the date, and used and profit-making without any legal cause, such as providing it as the passage of neighboring residents, etc., thereby gaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. Accordingly, the defendant suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs who are the owners. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances