1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 1974, the father of the Plaintiff A and the father of the Plaintiff B, C, who is the father of the Plaintiff B, completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the 191 and E level 128 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant division”).

B. As of September 21, 1974, C, as the right map, was divided into five parcels, i.e., the land of this case as specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of [Attachment List 1] and the land of this case, i.e., F, 39, G, 6, and H, 88, i.e., the part of the site of the building. The land of this case was divided into six parcels, i.e., I, 10, J, 40, K, 24, L, 7, M, 7, and 5, and transferred to the building owner the ownership of the remaining parts, excluding the land of this case (hereinafter “the part of the above drawing; hereinafter “each land of this case”).

C. After C died on August 24, 1984, the Plaintiffs were unaware of the existence of each of the instant lands, and the Plaintiffs came to know thereof on March 2016. After completing inheritance registration on March 17, 2016, Plaintiff A completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on March 16, 2016 to Plaintiff B, who is ASEAN, on March 31, 2016.

Each land of this case is currently being used as a packing road.

【Based on Recognition, Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Evidence Nos. 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), each of which is recorded, the result of this court’s entrustment of appraisal to the Director of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the fact that each of the instant lands alleged by the Plaintiffs is offered for the general public for traffic, and that the Defendant installed a sewerage system in the underground of each of the instant lands and installed the asphalt packaging construction, it is recognized that the Defendant actually occupied each of the instant lands from May 1, 201, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from May 1, 201 to the date of expiry of the Defendant’s occupation for each of the instant lands or the date of the Plaintiffs’ loss of ownership.

(b) judgment;