1. Defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government: KRW 60,750 to each of the Plaintiffs, respectively, and Defendant Jongno-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government from January 1, 2015 to September 10, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 1996, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one half of the land of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C forest land of 12,172 square meters (hereinafter “Before subdivision”), and Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one half of the land before subdivision on June 14, 1997.

B. On September 16, 2013, the land before subdivision was divided into Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 9,377 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) and D forest land 2,795 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. The Defendant Jongno-gu established a tobacco mentor and sap mentor and apap 2 on the land of this case, and occupied the part used as the site for the building of this case, which is 54 square meters in the attached Form No. 2, and the land of this case is 54 square meters in the attached Form No. 1. The building of this case is registered as the real estate register.

On the other hand, on November 26, 2009, the defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government designated and publicly announced one Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF as G ecological and scenery conservation area including the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case as announced E in Seoul Metropolitan Government, and delegated management to the defendant Jongno-gu.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 7-1 through 3, 8, 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, 1-2, 2-2, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Jongno-gu established the instant building on the land No. 2 owned by the Plaintiffs and occupied and used the instant land No. 2. The Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City designates and publicly notify the land No. 1 and 2 as an ecological and scenery conservation area, and delegates and manages Jongno-gu to the Defendant, which is an indirect possession of the instant land No. 2.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendants jointly have a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession and use of the land of this case to the plaintiffs.