1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 27, 1976, G had been owned from March 27, 1976, 1,035/14,070 shares of the said forest were pre-purchaseed and the ownership transfer registration was completed on March 5, 1985.

B. The Defendant, from around 1984, performed road construction among E, and around 1986, incorporated F forest land 1,566 square meters (the land category was changed to a road on January 23, 1986; hereinafter “instant land”) into a road site, and occupied and used it as a road until now after completion of the road construction work.

C. Meanwhile, the instant land was purchased before September 10, 1998, and each registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the partition of co-owned property as of September 8, 1998 in the name of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B, 24/1,566 equity in the name of Plaintiff B, 783/1,566 equity in the name of Plaintiff I, J and K, and each of 70.5/1,566 equity in the name of J and K.

Since November 2, 2001, the instant land became subject to registration conversion with C road 1,566 square meters on November 2, 2001.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiffs unjust enrichment from October 5, 201 to the expiration date of the Defendant’s possession of the instant land or the date of the Plaintiffs’ loss of ownership, as the Plaintiffs seek.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to the lawful claim for acquisition of ownership, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' claim cannot be complied with since he deposited compensation through the procedure for acquisition of land at the time of using the land as a road site in relation to the above road works, and lawfully acquired the ownership of the above land.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant is the Seoul District Court as to the land of this case on February 28, 1986.