1. The defendant,

A. The Plaintiff A shall pay KRW 2,058,218 to Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, and G respectively KRW 1,372,145.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 1981, the deceased I (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of initial ownership as to H roads 1,123 cubic meters (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. The Deceased died on November 11, 2003.

Of the instant land, Plaintiff A, the deceased’s spouse, succeeded to 3/15 shares, and 2/15 shares of Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “Plaintiff B, etc.”) who are the deceased’s children, respectively.

C. The land category of the instant case was changed from May 26, 1982 to a road before the previous land category was changed, and the Defendant occupied and managed the instant land by providing it to the general public for traffic and passage since the time of change of land category.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant provided the land of this case as a passage to the general public and obtained profits from the use of the land of this case by occupying and using it, and thereby suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the rent amount for the land of this case to the plaintiffs, the owner of the land of this case, as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not raise any objection to the Defendant, despite being aware that the instant land was used as a road site, as to the Defendant’s argument regarding the waiver of exclusive use right, and that the Plaintiffs did not waive the exclusive use right and exclusive use right to the instant land and did not cause any damage.

If any private land is naturally occurring or is actually used as a road intended for public traffic, the owner of such land shall himself/herself.