beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The fact that Plaintiff A owned the instant land jointly in the shares of 1/2, Plaintiff B, and C in each of the 1/4 shares, and the fact that the instant land was packed in the asphalt and is being used as part of the road necessary for the passage of automobiles and the general public does not conflict between the parties.
B. The plaintiffs asserted that since the defendant occupied and managed the land of this case, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rental fee.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case was waived, the return of unjust enrichment cannot be claimed.
C. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land was waived.
1) The aggregate land of this case is the land D and E in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and each of the above land was developed as a site in forests and fields around June 1970.2) The above D land was divided into several parcels of land including the instant land upon the Plaintiff’s application for land division on March 25, 1974; and E land was divided into several parcels of land upon the Plaintiff’s application for land division on July 24, 1972 and F.
(4) The Plaintiff and F, along with the application for subdivision, changed the category of G land into a road and reported non-taxation. The Plaintiff and F, together with the application for subdivision, filed a non-taxation report. (3) The instant land was most divided into a housing site, and a tenement house was newly built on that ground. The instant land was divided into a passage among the instant housing site from the beginning, and used as a passage necessary for the passage of residents residing in the newly constructed housing.
(Plaintiffs asserted that the report was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). 5 Plaintiffs are on the ground that the instant land is used as a road so far.