1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The defendant, to the plaintiff A, 535,925 won, the plaintiff B, and C respectively, 206,125 won and the plaintiff D.

1. Establishment of claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. (1) The fact of recognition is 1) The land of Pyeongtaek-si E-road (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the network F.

(2) On April 19, 1971, the Plaintiff and G entered the inheritance registration (on November 6, 1979) with respect to the Plaintiffs and G upon the death of the net F, and thereafter on November 13, 1990, the Plaintiff owned each share of 13/32, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff D, respectively, due to the death of G on November 13, 1990. (2) On the other hand, the instant land was divided from the land of Pyeongtaek-si H site (hereinafter “land before division”) on May 30, 1979, and its land category was changed to a road on the same day.

3) The Gyeonggi-do Pyeongtaek-gun, where the land of this case is located, came to 1981, and the defendant was the current defendant, combining Song-si, Pyeongtaek-si, and Pyeongtaek-si around May 1995. The defendant (including Pyeongtaek-gun and Song-si prior to the consolidation) has occupied and managed the land of this case by providing the land of this case as a road for the general public traffic from May 1, 2009 to April 30, 201, in ordinary cases of rent, the basic land price to calculate unjust enrichment to be returned to the owner of the land of this case should be assessed based on the actual status of use as at the time when the occupation begins (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31736, May 12, 2006). Thus, the current status of the land of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31736, May 12, 2006).

The sum is KRW 1,319,200, and the rent from May 1, 2015 is KRW 222,720 per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 7, the result of the commission of appraisal of rent by the court of first instance to the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, by occupying and using the land of this case, obtained benefits equivalent to the rent of the land of this case without any legal grounds, and suffered considerable damages from the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant shall not have any special reasons.