1. The defendant,

A. 3,549,310 won, Plaintiff B’s KRW 1,111,80, and Plaintiff C’s KRW 2,179,827 and each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff D completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 29, 1963 with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

B. On October 26, 2014, Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 29, 2016, on the land of this case 3.

C. The plaintiff C completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 29, 1986 with respect to the share 226/338 out of the land of this case 4.

The land category of this case was changed from around August 31, 1964 to around November 10, 1973 to a road. The land category of this case was changed from around March 17, 1989 to a road from around March 17, 1989. The land category of this case was changed from around December 29, 201 to a road. The land category of this case was changed from around December 29, 2016 to a road.

The defendant has been occupying and managing each of the above land by providing it for the traffic and passage of the general public at the time of the change of land category or since then.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1 to 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the facts of recognition of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the defendant provided each of the lands of this case as a passage to the general public, obtained profits by occupying and using them, and suffered losses from the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from possession and use to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of each of the lands of this case, unless there is no proof of assertion as to the possessory right.

B. The Defendant asserts that the acquisition by prescription 1 as to the Defendant’s assertion was completed as the acquisition by prescription was completed as the land of this case was preserved, openly and openly managed and occupied on the road for a long time.

If the nature of possessory source of real estate is not clear, the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance by his own will pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Code.