1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) 7,026,846 won and 5% per annum from September 22, 2015 to October 13, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division drafted during the Japanese occupation point period was subject to the Nonparty E’s assessment of the Gyeonggi Yang-gun 656 E. The land was divided into CY 130 square meters and F 526 square meters, and the said C Order 130 square meters were pointed out to be “Road” on February 12, 1958.

B. Since the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of Nonparty H on June 15, 1987, the said C-road 430 square meters (the unit conversion from the 130 square meters) whose administrative district was changed to Guri-si, Guri-si was divided into 304 square meters on the same road and 304 square meters on July 18, 1990, I large 47 square meters, and J large 79 square meters, and the said C-road 304 square meters was divided into 282 square meters on May 4, 191 (hereinafter “instant land”) and 22 square meters on the same road (hereinafter “the instant land”).

C. The use status of the instant land is as follows.

1) According to the cadastral support map as of December 1913, 1913, a road was established in the upper part of 656 square meters, which was before the land of this case was divided into the land of this case. 2) On December 1, 1938, the land of this case was designated and publicly announced as the 46th local highway line (government - Geumg) by the public notice of the Do governor as of December 1, 1938 pursuant to Article 14-2 of the Joseon Road Decree.

3) After May 28, 1978, among the above local highways published by Gyeonggi-do, the land of this case was modified to the 64th class 64m width in the old city planning lawsuit, 490m width, 3th class 64m width in the old city planning lawsuit. 4) The land of this case is used as part of the above road managed by the defendant.

On the other hand, on April 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs acquired 1/2 shares of each of the instant real estate by public auction, and owned until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the establishment of the return of unjust enrichment, the Defendant provided each of the instant land for the passage of the general public without any legal ground, and occupied and used each of the instant land, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent, and thereby, sustained damages equivalent to the same amount from the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land.