1. The Defendant’s respective KRW 9,273,00 for each of the Plaintiffs, and 15% per annum from November 22, 2018 to May 31, 2019, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 1954, E completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale with respect to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D road 145 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and died on July 10, 2015 while owning it.

B. The Plaintiffs inherited each of the E’s 1/2 shares of the deceased E’s children, including the instant land, due to the death of E.

C. The instant land is used as a H’s site, which is a 16-meter road in the width of linking the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fdong and Jongno-gu Gdong managed by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Gap's 12 through 16, Eul's 1 through 4 (including each branch number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, without obtaining any consent from E or the Plaintiffs on the use and profit-making of the instant land, opened a road without permission and occupied and used it, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent for the said land. The Defendant suffered from E and the Plaintiffs the damages equivalent to the amount of the rent.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the purport of the claim that the Defendant distributed 340,830 won per month to the Plaintiffs in proportion to their respective shares, from November 21, 2013 to November 20, 2018, as well as from November 20, 2018.

3. Determination

A. The facts that E owned the instant land from October 25, 1954 to around October 25, 1954, and that E died on July 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs inherited the Plaintiffs’ respective shares of E, respectively. The facts that the instant land is used as a site for H, a road managed by the Defendant, which is a public road for the traffic of the general public, are as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, the defendant occupied the land of this case as the road management agency which includes the land of this case and suffered a loss equivalent to the rent from the owner of this case.

As such, it can be seen.