1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) The amount entered in attached Form 1 at the end of July 24, 2016 to September 5, 2017.

1. On August 19, 1993, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the facts on the basis (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was divided into the 1,720 square meters away from the O road No. 2,876 square meters on August 19, 1993.

The P road 298 square meters, “1,156 square meters”, “2 land”, “3 land”, and “a Q road 694 square meters” are “4 square meters,” respectively.

On March 31, 1918, when it was turned out to be owned by the State (State) on March 31, 1918, the transfer of ownership was made to K and six others on March 31, 1929, and the network L, which is the lighting or increased portion of the plaintiffs, was one of seven co-owners.

Pursuant to Article 262(2) of the Civil Code, the shares of co-owners are presumed to be equal, so the shares of the network L is 1/7.

The deceased L was killed on August 26, 1938, and according to customs at the time, the deceased M, the family heir and the deceased, the South-North, inherited 1/7 shares of the deceased, and the deceased on November 30, 1986, the deceased inherited 1/7 shares of each of the instant real estate as shown in the Attached 3 Family Map.

The defendant, around 197, has been incorporated into the RR urban planning in part of each real estate of this case and used in the general public.

The instant lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 12, and 16, the result of the commission of appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation branch, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the obligation to return unjust enrichment was established

A. According to the facts acknowledged in Paragraph (1) of the return of unjust enrichment, each of the instant real estate is owned by the Plaintiffs in share as shown in Attached Table 1, and the Defendant continues to occupy and use each of the instant real estate until now. Thus, unless the Defendant proves that the Defendant had legitimate right to occupy each of the instant real estate as a road, the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by occupying and using each of the instant real estate as a road, and thereby, caused damage to the Plaintiffs, who are its owners.

Therefore, the defendant.