1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiff A: KRW 17,541,319 for each of the KRW 17,541,319 and each of the KRW 26,311,978 for Plaintiff B, C, D, and E.

1. The deceased G (the deceased on February 22, 2013, hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 10, 1973 with respect to the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fmiscellaneous land (hereinafter “the instant land”).

Plaintiff

A as the wife, the plaintiff B, C, D, and E of the deceased, the plaintiffs shall be the deceased's heir.

The Defendant, around 1985, occupied and used the instant land by constructing a road on the instant land and repairing the asphalt Packing work and the damaged road.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, A1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The defendant's duty to return unjust enrichment 1) According to the above facts, the defendant obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the rent by using the land in this case without any legal cause and thereby caused property damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to return unjust enrichment due to possession and use from October 22, 2009 to the expiration date of possession or the date of loss of the plaintiffs' ownership due to the closure of the land in this case, which the plaintiffs sought from October 2, 2009 to the expiration date of possession due to the closure of the road in this case or the date of loss of the plaintiffs' ownership. 2) As to this, the defendant was incorporated into H construction at around 1985, but since the land in this case was already used as the road in this case since it had already been used as the road in 1966,

It is insufficient to recognize that the respective descriptions or images of Eul 5 and 6 alone were used as a road from before 1966, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and even if the land of this case was used as a road from before 1966, it cannot be readily concluded that the landowner renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case solely on such ground.