1. The defendant,

A. 1,837,440 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from August 20, 2017 to the day of complete payment to Plaintiff A.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 1979, Plaintiff A completed the registration of initial ownership on each of the lands listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the [Attachment List Nos. 1 and 1979; Plaintiff B completed the registration of initial ownership on each of the lands listed in Paragraph 3 of the [Attachment List No. 3 due to the inheritance of property due to the consultation division on January 7, 1980; and on each land listed in Paragraph 4 of the Attached List No. 4, January 17, 1991; Plaintiff C completed the registration of initial ownership on November 12, 1973, and Plaintiff C completed the registration of initial ownership on the land listed in Paragraph 5 of the Attached Table No. 5.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands” in the separate sheet, and in the case of the individual lands, “the instant O land” shall be deemed to be “each of the instant lands according to the sequences.”

The land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was before March 17, 89, respectively. The land No. 3 of this case was changed from the previous forest on February 20, 1973, and the land No. 4 of this case from the previous forest on March 17, 1989, and the land category No. 5 of this case was changed from the previous forest on December 20, 1963 to each road on December 20, 1963.

From the time of the change of the above land category, the Defendant occupied and managed each of the instant land by providing it for the general public for traffic and passage.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant provided each of the lands of this case as a passage to the general public and obtained profits from the use of each of the lands of this case by occupying and using them, and thereby suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of each of the lands

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant occupied each of the instant land in peace and public performance with the intent to own it for at least 20 years.