1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

According to the descriptions described in Gap 1-4 and Eul 1 and each images described in Gap 5-1 and 5-2, on October 28, 2009, with respect to 6/7 shares among 102 square meters of road of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the instant land"), registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the plaintiff Eul's future with respect to 6/7 shares in the 6/7 square meters of road of Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the instant land"), and the instant land is used as part of a road connecting D and E from October 8, 1926 to the point of time after the land category has changed from the site to the road, and the instant land was used as part of the road connecting D and E from that time. It is recognized that the asphalt package was conducted, and there was a sewerage system, such as a resident priority parking

According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the occupation of the land of this case, since the defendant gains profit equivalent to the rent by using and gaining profit from the land of this case without any legal grounds, and thereby causes damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiffs.

According to Article 8 of the Detailed Ordinance of the Republic of Korea, effective March 16, 1914, the defendant's defense against the defendant, the State, Do, Do, Gun, Gun, Myeon, or organization designated by the Joseondo Governor, provides that the land provided for public or public purposes shall be exempted from taxes. The land of this case is divided from the land of Seongdong-gu Seoul on October 8, 1926 to the land of this case and Seongdong-gu Seoul on the land of this case, the land category of this case was changed from the land of this case to the road, and the neighboring land was also deleted from the land land of this case, and its neighboring land was changed to the land land of this case to the land of this case, and the land price was deleted and changed to the tax exemption area. Accordingly, it is proved that H, the former owner of the land of this case, has the right to use the land of this case to the defendant or profit from this case.

In full view of the records in Eul, Eul, and the purport of the whole pleadings, this case was made during the Japanese occupation period.