1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. On May 16, 1989, Plaintiff A acquired the ownership of 169 square meters of D-Road 169 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 8, 1984, the Plaintiffs acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership of Plaintiff A3/9 shares, Plaintiff B, C, and Nonparty F 2/9 shares with respect to the E-road 68 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant laid the water supply and drainage pipe and sewage pipe on 157.3 square meters of the instant land and 55.4 square meters of the instant land, among the instant land No. 1 and the instant land No. 2 (hereinafter “instant two parts”), and the fact that the road packaging works are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the appraisal and appraisal by the appraiser and the entire purport of the appraisal and appraisal.

2. The key point of the party’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Defendant did not possess the instant road, and the Plaintiffs renounced their exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom, which led to the failure to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the State or a local government, in fact, executes road renovation or maintenance and repair works, such as expansion of existing roads, road packaging, and construction of sewerage systems, and uses them for the traffic of the general public, such roads shall be deemed to be under the actual control of the State or a local government, and possession as a de facto controlling entity may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da34155, Feb. 23, 1993). According to the above recognition, the defendant is in possession as the de facto controlling entity of the road of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the road of this case to the plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the defendant's defense (1), the defendant has exclusive right to use and benefit from the plaintiffs.