1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs acquired and shared ownership on May 11, 2017 with respect to the attached land.

(b)Annexed land shall consist of 5 pages (criangulation) as listed below, and is packed among the buildings as follows:

(P) On the left photograph, a rectangular-type part connected to a spon and white line is attached to the land and the right building is the E, and the right photograph is taken on the opposite side of the building. (No dispute over part, or the purport of the entire pleadings)

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiffs asserted that they occupy and use the attached land without permission for the convenience of the residents from 10 years to 10 years, without any legal title, for the benefit of the residents. Therefore, the plaintiff's unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent should be paid.

3. The grounds for the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant occupies and uses the attached land by providing it to the residents' contribution are as follows: ① An individual cannot be set up private, and a local government can only set up pursuant to the law, attached Table of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, which is an indication of the

6. Types of safety signs, methods of creating them, and standards for installing and managing them;

2. Road surface labeling;

(b) Central obstacle markings, road traffic, parking prohibition signs, stop and parking prohibition signs, and safety zone markers among road obstacles shall be yellow, exclusive bus lanes and multi-vehicle lane markers shall be blue, children protection zones or residential areas, and signs of prohibition of stopping or parking in the vicinity of fire-fighting systems installed pursuant to Article 10-3 (2) of the Decree shall be red and other signs shall be white, and the standards for colors shall be as follows:

It is 2 points out that it was marked on the street, ② that it was done by the defendant, and that it was packed together with the surrounding land.

① The white solid line asserted by the Plaintiff is not a road surface indication under the Road Traffic Act, but E.