1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 1994, the area of C road 252 square meters was divided into the area of 247 square meters and C5 square meters and the area of D road 247 square meters and C5 square meters.

B. On December 24, 1994, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land 1 and 5 square meters for land C and 5 square meters, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on June 13, 2013 for land expropriation.

C. On July 26, 1994, Plaintiff B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the gift made on July 8, 1994 with respect to the land size of 201 square meters prior to Yang-si, Suwon-si, 1994.

On February 21, 2001, the land category was changed to a road on February 21, 2001. On October 23, 2012, E was divided into 187 square meters for E road (hereinafter “instant two land”) and 14 square meters for F road, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant two land on June 13, 2013 for land expropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-1-4

2. The Plaintiffs did not use both the land of this case 1 and the land of this case as a road. However, the Defendant, without a legitimate title, opened a road on the land of this case 1 and the land of this case 2, and occupied, used, and obtained a profit equivalent to the rent, and the Plaintiffs asserted that they suffered a loss equivalent to the said amount, and sought a return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is difficult to recognize that the defendant opened and occupied the road on the land of this case and the land of this case 1 and the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.