1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2, 1939, the network C acquired ownership of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) due to sale and purchase.

B. Each land of this case was divided from its mother land on or around January 23, 1941, and its category was changed from the land category to the “road”, and thereafter, the Defendant or the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs enacted the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 15 on April 4, 1938 and enacted the Ordinance of the Ministry of Shipbuilding No. 12, 1938.12

1. Implementation;

(b) Article 19 (1) (Article 19 (1) (Article 19 (1));

3) On March 28, 2005, the Plaintiff and D inherited each of the instant land in the U.S. on November 25, 1996, the Plaintiff and D succeeded to 1/3 shares of each of the instant land as the Plaintiff died in the U.S. on November 25, 1996. The Plaintiff and D succeeded to 1/3 shares of each of the instant land (a dispute without any grounds for recognition, each of the entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as the Plaintiff and D were designated as E as a local area by the announcement of the decision of the O road zone of Gyeonggi-do public notice on March 28, 2005

2. As to the claim by the plaintiffs for the return of unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of each of the instant lands against the defendant, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs submitted the certificate of land engineer's claim, which the deceased C submitted as the landowner, but, as long as the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the plaintiffs did not complete, they do not have standing to sue in the instant lawsuit.

However, the defendant's defense is without merit, since the plaintiff has standing to sue in the lawsuit for performance as in the case of this case, since the defendant's grounds for standing to sue are matters to be judged within the merits.

3. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the defendant, by occupying and using each of the lands of this case, gains a profit equivalent to the rent without any legal cause, and thereby, gains each of the lands of this case.