1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant is obligated to return the profits accrued therefrom as unjust enrichment, since the defendant packages Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government road C 195 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") owned by the plaintiffs without permission and occupies and uses it as roads by installing waterworks and sewerage facilities.

As to this, the defendant packaging the land of this case and does not possess or use it as a road, and is not so.

The plaintiffs asserts that they renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case.

2. Determination of whether a State or a local government occupies a road is divided into possession and possession as a de facto controlling entity. Thus, the State or a local government’s construction works necessary on private land, where the traffic of the general public is not common, and the land is in the form of a road, and then is common use for the traffic of the general public, possession as a de facto controlling entity can be acknowledged, deeming that the road is under de facto control by the State or a local government.

The records and images of the evidence No. 6 through 9 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant used the land of this case for the next public traffic with the form of a road on packaging, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have actually controlled the land of this case on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, if a private land is naturally occurring or is classified as a prospective road site and actually used as a road for public traffic of the general public, the owner of the land directly provides the land as a road and grants the neighboring residents or the general public the right to free traffic, or exclusive and exclusive rights to the land.