1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiff A: KRW 7,065,354, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E respectively; KRW 3,768,188, Plaintiff F, G, and H 2,590.

In full view of the statements in Gap's 1, 2, 3-1, and 3-3 as well as the result of the commission of appraisal of fees and the purport of the entire pleadings to the appraiser J, K purchased 58 square meters prior to Goyang-gu, Soyang-gu and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 20, 1928. The above land was changed to the road category on November 6, 1937, and became 192 square meters prior to Sejong-gu I (hereinafter referred to as "the instant land"), the plaintiffs, L, and M after K died.

1. A list of inheritance relations and the attached list;

2. The fact that K’s property was inherited according to the statutory share of inheritance, such as that entered in the inheritance share sheet, and the land in this case was sealed in the asphalt around 1980, and the Defendant is recognized to possess the land in this case by providing the roads opened as above to the general public for the passage of the general public as of the date of closing argument after the local autonomy was implemented.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the above rent as unjust enrichment, as it gains benefits by using and making profits from the land of this case as a road without any legal ground and thereby causes losses to the plaintiffs.

In regard to this, the defendant set up a defense that K renounced renounced its exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case for the purpose of using the land of this case, which is the only one lot number of the land of this case, including the land of this case, after dividing it into the land of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it

According to the result of the appraisal of rent against the appraiser J within the scope of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, where the land in this case is evaluated as being a road as the present condition, the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from March 17, 2010 to June 25, 2015 is KRW 34,621,00 (= KRW 33,049,000) as follows, and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is KRW 476,00 on June 25, 2015 (the sum of the Plaintiffs’ shares out of KRW 476,000 in the table below).