1. As to shares of 2/12 in relation to the Plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed parties C, and D, among 10 square meters in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City B, the Defendant.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, 10, and 11:

In Busan, Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant land”) the ownership transfer registration is made under the Defendant’s name on September 1, 1948 on the ground of reversion of rights.

B. Since before around 1974, G occupied and used the instant land, and died on February 20, 1980, G continued to manage the instant land by succeeding to the possession of the G in relation to the instant land by E, Ha, Ha and the remaining ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as “the appointed party”) who is his wife, N, and C, and D. Of them, H also died on September 24, 2015 and became the inheritor F.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion (1) Plaintiff G paid user fees to the Defendant while occupying and using the instant land. On June 8, 1974, the Defendant purchased the instant land from the Defendant for KRW 21,000,000. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant land to the Plaintiff and the designated parties, who are their successors, according to their respective shares of inheritance.

Nevertheless, since the defendant collected a total of KRW 1,511,560 from G, the plaintiff and the selected parties as the usage fee for the land of this case, it is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment.

(2) The Defendant did not sell the instant land to Defendant G.

Even if not, G's right to claim ownership transfer registration of the land of this case was extinguished by the expiration of the ten-year extinctive prescription period.

In addition, since G, the plaintiff and the designated parties did not acquire ownership because they did not have completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case, the payment of usage fees to the defendant cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment.