1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, along with E, is a co-owner of each 1/2 share of D 44.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”).

The Plaintiff’s share was originally determined by the deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”). However, on June 13, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the share after completing the registration of transfer of ownership on April 5, 2016 due to the agreement division of inherited property.

B. Defendant B is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 21, 1999 due to sale and purchase on May 9, 199 with respect to G large 165.7 square meters and 2-storys adjacent to the instant road, and Defendant C also is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 1, 200 for H large 169 square meters and 169.3 square meters adjacent to the instant road and the housing on 2-storys adjacent to the instant road on April 1, 200.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant houses”) C.

The current status of the above detailed land shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") is specified only as a parcel number and referred to in paragraph (d).

The Defendants used the road of this case as the only entry from the time of acquisition of each of the instant houses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, 8, 9 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion is using the instant road without the source of possessory right. As such, the Plaintiff should jointly pay 1/2 of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff due to such use.

B. The Defendants’ assertion appears to have omitted the road of this case due to mistake at the time of serial sale.

Since the Defendants succeeded to the possession of each previous owner of each house, the acquisition by prescription of real estate was completed, the Defendants cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request in this respect.

In addition, the plaintiff's filing of the claim of this case against the defendants is not allowed against the principle of invalidation.

3. Determination

A. The Defendants determined the cause of the claim.