1. The Defendant indicated the Plaintiffs each of the KRW 461,380 and the KRW 420,000,000 from October 22, 2012, indicated with the annexed drawing on the E-road 420,00 square meters.

Basic facts are specified by the sequences of each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”) in the separate sheet No. 1 list, and the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, completed the registration of preservation of ownership on September 13, 1934, and the net G died on October 18, 1996 and succeeded to each of 1/4 shares jointly by the Plaintiffs according to the agreement division, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 16, 201.

Each of the instant lands was divided from H land (land category is forest land) on August 31, 1964, Seopo-si, Seopo-si. The land category of the instant land was changed to a road on the same day. The land category of the instant land was changed to a road, and the land category of the instant land was maintained as forest land.

Each of the lands of this case is in the south of the Janpo City I, Seopopo City I, and its neighboring areas are farmland and detached houses.

The land No. 1 of this case is currently being used as a road as a large-scale land, such as a substitute road, compared to neighboring land.

K local highways are adjacent to the south of the land of this case, and it is possible to access the land from the above land to the vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs' assertion was made, while performing the road expansion work within the past jurisdiction, they unilaterally incorporated part of each of the lands of this case into the road site without paying compensation to the deceased G or the plaintiffs who are the owners of each of the lands of this case into the road site, and build it as a road and use it until now.

Therefore, the defendant paid to the plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and delay damages for the past five years, and the plaintiffs are obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent every year until the date when the plaintiffs lose their ownership of each of the lands of this case or the defendant completed the use of the land of this case.

In fact, the deceased G's wife, son M and N did not inherit each of the instant land, but the instant land is due to the consultation and division between the Plaintiffs.