1. The defendant,

A. 15% per annum from March 19, 2017 to the date of full payment for the Plaintiff A, 16,980,540 won, and for this, 15% per annum.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer for each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) on November 15, 1971 and December 7, 1971. The Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer for each land listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “instant three land”) on April 7, 2001.

B. The Defendant provided each of the above lands to the general public for traffic and passage, and occupied and managed them.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant provided the land of this case to the general public for the purpose of return of unjust enrichment, and gained profits by occupying and using it, and suffered losses to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land of this case to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the above land, unless there is any assertion as to the right of possession.

The defendant's assertion 1 did not raise any objection with knowledge that the land category of the land of this case 1 through 3 is changed to a road and is being used as a road site. The plaintiff asserts that no damage has occurred due to waiver of the exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from each of the above land.

In the event that any private land is, in fact, naturally created or transferred to be used as a road site and is actually being used as a road for public traffic, the owner of the land directly provides such land as a road, thereby granting the neighboring residents or the general public the right to free traffic, or exclusive use and profit-making rights for such land.