1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to paragraph (1).

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 16, 1967, with respect to the inheritance from the deceased G on April 16, 1967 and the ownership transfer on February 19, 2018, with respect to the share of 1/4 shares, on the grounds of the inheritance of property due to the division of consultation, the Plaintiffs received from the deceased G on April 16, 1967.

The land category of the instant case was changed from November 22, 1940 to “road” on November 22, 1940. The land category of the instant case was changed from “the road” to “the road” on October 30, 1972, which was divided into H, which was the land before subdivision, and the land category was changed from “the road” on May 3, 1973.

From November 22, 1940, the Defendant occupied and used the instant land No. 1 from around November 2, 1940, and from around May 3, 1973, the instant land No. 2 as a road.

When the land of each of the instant lands was used as a eight-meter road, the KJ was newly established on March 20, 1976 at a 8-meter radius from the Gyeongbuk-do, and the decision of the K urban planning and the change of the cadastral approval were announced.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including each branch number in the case of additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence, and the whole purport of pleading as to the ground for claim of return of unjust enrichment as a whole, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff by occupying and using the land of this case without any legal ground, and thereby causing losses equivalent to the amount of the rent. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiffs the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the occupation and use of the land of this case.

As to the Defendant’s defense, since since 1940, the Defendant renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land by providing the names of those who were farming workers around the road with the farm roads for the convenience of farmers, the Defendant has the obligation to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land of this case to the Plaintiffs.