1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Republic of Korea: (1) 5,406,493 won and its therefrom from December 6, 2016 to April 27, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 1915, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was subject to the assessment of 239 square meters for C graves in common. On August 18, 1936, the land was divided into 196 and 43 square meters for D graves (the land of this case became the first land due to the subsequent conversion of the area), and thereafter the said D land was subdivided into 151 square meters for D graves and 155 square meters for F road (the land of this case was the subsequent conversion of the area) on November 3, 1969.

B. In addition, on December 11, 1924, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer relating to G 1,939 square meters. The land was divided into H 445 square meters on August 10, 1931, I road 202 (the third land was converted into the area thereafter) and J 1,292 square meters on August 10, 193.

C. Each of the instant lands is part of the roads provided for the traffic of the general public, and the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is under the management of the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the land No. 3 of this case is under the management of Defendant Tong Young-si.

On the other hand, upon the deceased’s death on December 27, 1953, K succeeded to Australia. After that, K was declared missing on July 22, 1982, and his heir agreed to each of the instant lands as owned by the Plaintiff on December 30, 2015, following the procedure for the division of inherited property.

E. Accordingly, on January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff completed registration of ownership preservation on the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and completed registration of ownership transfer on the land No. 3 of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 13, 14, Gap evidence 16, 17, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including the paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, the defendants gain profits by occupying and using each of the land of this case without any legal grounds and suffered losses from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendants’.