1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On May 16, 1994, Plaintiff A acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid of 1048 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and E (hereinafter referred to as “F”) of the 1048 square meters of the C-Road, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and Plaintiff B acquired the ownership by purchasing the 2319 square meters of G road, G road 2319 square meters, H road 244 square meters on May 30, 2008. There is no dispute between the parties that each of the above land is actually used as a road.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land” when referring to each of the above lands together, and individually referring to each of the above lands, referring to “each of the instant land” and referring only to Ri and bundine when referring to each of them). 2.

A. Since the plaintiffs without any title gain unjust enrichment while occupying and managing the land of this case as a road without any title, they are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiffs.

B. The Defendant Plaintiffs may not seek a return of unjust enrichment from the Defendant, since they renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the State or a local government grants the right of free traffic to the general public by providing the land as a road to the state or a local government, which opened, occupied, or managed the land as above, in a case where the land in question is offered for the general traffic, regardless of the legal procedures, such as the Road Act or the Urban Planning Act, on the private land where the State or the local government was actually used or not used for the general public, the State or the local government, who opened, occupied, or managed it as a road, may not claim a return of unjust enrichment on the ground of an unlawful possession.

The land owner has renounced the right to use and benefit if any private land is naturally occurring or is classified as a road site and is actually used as a general traffic route.

for the purpose of interpreting that consent was given on the road, this shall apply.