1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact of recognition was found that G was the land H on April 30, 1914 (hereinafter “land before subdivision”); the land before subdivision was divided into the land I on March 10, 1923 (hereinafter “instant land”); the land before subdivision was divided into the land I on March 10, 1923 (hereinafter “the land before subdivision”); the F land (hereinafter “instant land”); the land was divided into the land; the Defendant occupied and managed the instant land on December 22, 1983, and offered the land to the general public and vehicle traffic while occupying and managing it. There is no dispute between the parties.

Meanwhile, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 3-1 to No. 4 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiffs can recognize the fact that they inherited the land of this case through L, M, N, etc. in sequence.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the land in this case is presumed to have been originally acquired due to the circumstances in the name of G, and thereafter, the plaintiffs inherited the property through L, M, N, etc., and thus, it is deemed to be owned by the plaintiffs.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant, who occupies and uses the instant land as a road, is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the occupation and use of the instant land to the Plaintiffs.

2. Judgment on the defense of prescriptive acquisition

A. The defendant's assertion that since around December 22, 1983, the defendant used the land of this case as a road and occupied it in good faith, peace, and public performance with intent to own the land, he acquired the land of this case by prescription, and therefore, he did not have a duty to return unjust enrichment on the land of this case

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the presumption of autonomous possession was reversed, since the defendant without any title was occupied without permission by incorporating the land of this case into the road site.

B. If the nature of possessory right of one real estate is not clear, the possessor, in accordance with Article 197(1) of the Civil Code, shall have possession in good faith, peace and public performance.