1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are asserted.

1. The scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed by the judgment of the court of first instance, and only the defendant appealed against the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment. Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant occupies the land of this case without legitimate title from December 14, 1971. Thus, since the plaintiffs jointly inherited the land of this case, the amount equivalent to the rent shall be refunded to the plaintiffs from June 1, 2012 to January 13, 2016, when five years have not elapsed retroactively from the date of the lawsuit of this case, which was the time when they sold their shares to the remaining plaintiffs by the plaintiffs D, and from the following day until the date when the defendant's possession of the land of this case is terminated or until the date when the ownership of the plaintiff A, B, and C is lost.

4. Determination

A. On March 21, 1999, I, the father of the plaintiffs, who was the father of the plaintiff, died on March 21, 199, acquired shares of 1/4 of the land of this case by the agreement on division of inherited property, and on January 13, 2016, the plaintiffs D sold their own shares of land to the remaining plaintiffs on January 13, 2016, and currently owned one-third shares of the land of this case, and the fact that the defendant occupied and managed the land of this case from December 14, 1971 to the present date is as above.

Thus, the defendant occupied the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs as a road, obtained a profit equivalent to the rent, and thereby caused a loss equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to return it to the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion 1.