1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The land whose name was divided from the Plaintiff’s P land in Goyang-gun, Goyang-gu N. 1,332 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) around August 30, 1927, which was the Plaintiff’s prior owner around 1913 and whose land category was changed from “M.” to “M.” at the same time. The fact that the Defendant started from around 1927 to occupy the instant land as a road site used by the general public and is currently occupying the instant land is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the entries in “A-4, 10-12, 12, and 2.”

2. Determination on both arguments

A. Based on the above facts, the plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs jointly inherited the land of this case, which is the property of Q, etc. as the cause of the claim of this case, through Q, etc., and sought restitution of unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land of this case against the defendant. The defendant asserted that since he had already acquired the land of this case by prescription in around 1947, it is impossible to comply with the plaintiffs' claim of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the presumption of the defendant's independent possession of the land of this case was already broken.

B. Therefore, we examine the right and wrong of the defendant's assertion of the acquisition by prescription of possession.

(1) The provisions of the relevant laws and regulations in force during the Japanese occupation are as follows.

◎ 조선도로령(1938. 4. 4. 조선총독부제령 제15호로 제정된 것)은 제1조, 제11조에서 도로를 일반교통용으로 제공되는 도로로서 행정청이 노선을 인정한 것을 말한다고 정하면서, 도로를 국도, 지방도, 부도, 읍면도로 나누고, 제16조에서 읍면도의 노선은 읍면내의 노선에 대하여 읍면장이 인정하는 것으로 정하면서, 제19조 제1항에서 도로의 관리청을 그 노선을 인정한 행정청으로 정하고, 제23조, 제24조에서 도로에 관한 공사의 시행와 도로...