1. Each appeal on the principal claim and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional determination' as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant donated the land of this case to K as a road during the Japanese occupation period for the Japanese occupation period, and there were many cases where K, which is the fleet of the plaintiffs, lawfully acquired the road site and did not enter it in the land cadastre. The land category of the land of this case was changed from 1924 to 1927, and the defendant continuously occupied the land of this case for twenty (20) years and acquired the land of this case by prescription, it is argued that as a counterclaim, the defendant sought the return of KRW 64,734,860, which was already paid to the plaintiffs as the price for the acquisition of the land of this case by consultation, and the defendant occupied the land of this case with a legitimate title, and thus the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment of the rent party.

B. (1) Determination is presumed to have been occupied by the owner’s intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and the State or a local government’s possession of the land solely based on the absence of any material that had undergone lawful compensation procedures with respect to the relevant land, by nature of the title.

Although it is impossible to conclude that the presumption of possession with autonomy is reversed, the State or a local government’s official record, etc. at the time of the commencement of the possession and use of the relevant land is preserved without being destroyed, and without any entry supporting the acquisition of ownership by the State or a local government, it is not acceptable to accept the possibility of acquiring ownership by lawful procedures without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da99143, Nov. 24, 2011).