1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiff A: (a) KRW 3,299,93, Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F, respectively, and KRW 25,127,120,120, respectively, to Plaintiff G;

1. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of appraisal of appraiser M’s fees by Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and appraiser’s appraisal of the cause of the claim, the facts identical to the stated “the cause of claim” and “the changed cause of claim” can be acknowledged.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiffs with unjust enrichment.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff cannot seek restitution of unjust enrichment since the defendant's use of each of the lands of this case as a road and possession of each of the lands of this case in peace and performance for a period of more than 20 years by possession.

If the State or a local government occupies or uses a private land without a certain title to possess the land, such as taking procedures for acquiring the public property, such as its own shares or donation, or obtaining the consent of its owners, as prescribed by the State Property Act, the Local Finance Act, etc., it shall be deemed that the presumption of the autonomous possession has broken unless there are any special circumstances.

However, the state or local government has failed to submit documents on the acquisition procedure of land claiming the completion of prescriptive acquisition.

In light of the circumstance and purpose of the possession, if the State or a local government appears to be unable to exclude the possibility that the State or the local government lawfully acquired the ownership by undergoing the procedure for acquiring public property at the time of the commencement of possession, it is difficult to deem that the State or the local government was aware of such circumstance without the legal requirements for acquiring the ownership, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the presumption of possession with autonomy is not broken out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da228342, Sept. 7, 2017). Examining the foregoing factual basis in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant followed the procedure for acquiring the ownership of each

any such possibility may be supported.