1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 9, 2007, Plaintiff A purchased 225.8 square meters of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City road C (hereinafter “instant land”) from E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land No. 1 on March 12, 2007.

B. On June 30, 2006, Plaintiff B purchased 337.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from F, Seoul Special Metropolitan City D road, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land No. 2 on August 17, 2006.

C. The Defendant is occupying and using the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 as a road.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant occupied and used the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case without due process of acquisition, and that the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment therefrom to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant, who was the owner of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and the E and F renounced the exclusive use right to the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and the plaintiffs acquired the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case with the same burden, so the defendant did not have the obligation to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.

B. (1) In the event that a private land in the relevant legal doctrine is, from the past to the past, naturally occurring or is actually used as a road intended for public traffic, the owner of the land directly provides that the land as a road and grants to neighboring residents or the general public the right to free access to the land, or gives up his/her exclusive and her right to use and benefit from the land, and uses it as a road in interpreting that he/she has given the right to free access to the land.