1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Each of the 4,804,200 won and the interest rate thereon shall be from November 1, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2000, H 595 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was originally owned by H 595 square meters, and the network I died and succeeded to the ratio of 1/7 of the Plaintiffs, respectively.

B. The land of this case was originally classified and its current status, but its land category was changed to a road on December 20, 1958, and the Defendant continued to manage the land.

C. The rent of the instant land is as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 9, 13, and 16 (including paper numbers), the result of a request for appraisal to J, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. The Defendant had already compensated for the instant land, but did not follow the procedure for ownership transfer. From December 20, 1958 to December 20, 1958, the Defendant occupied the instant land with the intention of ownership ownership for at least 20 years, and entered it in the reply on September 27, 1978 as “as of December 20, 198,” but appears to be a clerical error.

It argues that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed.

The local government or the state fails to submit documents on the acquisition procedure of land claiming the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period.

In light of the nature and purpose of the possession, if the State or a local government seems to be unable to exclude the possibility that the State or the local government lawfully acquired the ownership through the procedure for acquiring the public property at the time of the commencement of possession, it is difficult to view that the State or the local government was aware of such circumstance without permission without permission without the legal requirements for the acquisition of the ownership, and thus, the presumption of possession with autonomy is not broken

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866 Decided August 19, 2010). However, according to the respective statements (including the serial number) in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the land category of the instant land was divided from the mother land on or around December 1958, and was designated as a non-taxable land.