1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of the part of “(f)” in the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination on both arguments

A. Each of the respective claims in this case asserted that the plaintiffs without any legal ground that they occupied and used each of the lands in this case owned by the plaintiffs without permission, and that the defendant sought partial removal, delivery of land, and return of unjust enrichment against the defendant. The defendant asserted that the defendant could not comply with each of the claims in this case because he/she had a legitimate use in accordance with the implied agreement on the establishment of traffic zone, or that at least the plaintiffs sought delivery of each of the lands in this case around 2005, he/she acquired by prescription the right to access to the portion of each of the lands in this case (at least, the defendant used it as legitimate passage based on the right to passage over surrounding land, or that the plaintiffs' claim for the delivery of the land in this case violates the principle

B. In the instant case where: (a) the Defendant’s argument that there was an implied agreement on the establishment of a traffic area before and after the time of establishment of a traffic area; (b) the Defendant’s argument that there was an implied agreement between the parties; (c) however, there is insufficient evidence to support the argument; and (d) the assertion is not acceptable readily, this Court accepts the Defendant’s argument that there was an prescriptive acquisition of the traffic area area for the following reasons.

① The owner of a dominant estate may acquire by prescription only if he/she has opened a road on the dominant estate on the dominant estate and used the dominant estate continuously for the period prescribed in Article 245 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da8493, Apr. 13, 2001). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9-12, A9-12, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16.