1. The defendant

A. The Plaintiff 7,877,060 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from November 19, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 19, 1979 with respect to the land of 62 square meters in Seopo-si C, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, C, and the Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 20, 204 with respect to the land of 46 square meters in Seopo-si D, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant land No. 2”).

B. The land No. 1 is located above the “G road,” which is a round-to-distance secondary road near the F Elementary School located in Seopopo City E, and the land of this case is located above the “J” in the vicinity of the I Village Welfare Center located above the Hapo City, Seopo City, Seopopo City, and is used for the traffic of the general public in possession of each road packed by the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. According to the above facts, insofar as the Defendant, as the possessor of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, did not prove the existence of the source of possession right, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant occupied and used the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case without any legal cause, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent therefor, and that the Plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to the same amount.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return the benefits acquired from June 1, 201 to the Plaintiffs after the date of acquisition of ownership as requested by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, as long as the Defendant occupied the land Nos. 1 and 2 until the date of closing the argument of the instant case and refused to return unjust enrichment, the Plaintiffs may claim in advance for unjust enrichment from the date of completion of occupation of the Defendant due to the closure of the road, or from the date of loss of ownership by

B. As to this, the Defendant renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, such as that the Plaintiffs did not raise any objection against the Defendant’s use of the road.