1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiffs added the following judgments to the pertinent part, thereby citing this case’s assertion by the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As to the scope of return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the loss of property rights occurs to the right holder only when the right holder is unable to exercise his/her right to claim a real right due to ratification of an act of disposal by an unentitled person or a third party protection provision such as the acquisition by prescription of possession, etc., and that the appraisal value of the object at the time of loss of property rights should be the scope

In a case where a person without rights disposes of another person’s right in his name or as his own right, the holder of the right can approve the act of disposal by ratification on the subsequent date. Barring any special circumstance, the effect of the act of disposal on the holder of the right can be justified in light of the principles of private autonomy. In this case, ratification may be possible not only explicitly but also implicitly, and such declaration of intent may only be made on the part of the unauthorized representative or on the other party.

In addition, in cases where the right holder ratified an act of disposal by an unentitled person, it is reasonable to deem that the right holder can seek the return of the benefit obtained by the act of disposal by the unentitled person against the unentitled person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da44291, Nov. 9, 2001). In the case of return of unjust enrichment, the return of the amount of loss and the amount of profit is obligated to be limited to an amount less than the amount obtained by comparing the amount of loss and the amount of profit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu1061, May 25, 1982). Accordingly, the time when the Plaintiffs, the right holder of a right,