1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part written by the court under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Part 145 square meters connects each point in sequence of 23, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21, 22, and 23 of the judgment of the court of first instance, in Forms 3, 10, 11, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, 14, 17, 200, 14, 14, 14, 15, 20, 21, 222, and 23 of the drawings.

B. On the 3rd to 15th 14th 15th 15th 15th 3th 10, there is no dispute about “(based on recognition), Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 5-1 to 6th 5th 5th 5th , the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings” are as follows: "No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5-1 through 6, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, and Eul evidence 1, the result of the measurement and appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation in the first instance court, the purport of the entire pleadings.”

(c) Forms 6, 15, 7, and 17, of the first instance judgment are as follows.

With respect to the scope of unjust enrichment that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiffs, the scope of unjust enrichment is examined. In a case where a local government occupies or uses land owned by another person as a road site without any title, the scope of benefits of a local government as an occupant of land and damages to landowners is equivalent to the amount calculated by deducting the development gains from the rent calculated on the basis of the actual situation at the time of incorporation of the land, without considering the circumstances incorporated into the road (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da26059, Apr. 25, 1995). The amount equivalent to the rent for the land occupied or used by the State or a local government as a road.