1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The defendant alleged the claim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiffs asserted that, from April 22, 1966, the deceased L acquired the ownership of each land of this case, the Defendant illegally occupied and used the land of this case by including the land of this case into NL, etc., and sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each land of this case from March 16, 2012.

(2) The defendant asserts that the date of the lawsuit in this case and the date of the lawsuit in this case are different from the date of the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiffs sought return of unjust enrichment from March 16, 2012 in line with the date of the lawsuit in this case. Since the defendant does not specifically dispute this part, and there is a need for a consistent determination with the relevant case for convenience, the defendant is also required to make a consistent determination with the relevant case. (2) Accordingly, the defendant paid compensation for the land in this case (i) around March 16, 2012. The defendant paid compensation from N around 1977 for the land in this case, and (ii) given the residents or the general public the right of free passage.

(3) Since the facts that the defendant occupied and managed each of the lands of this case during the above period for which the plaintiffs sought restitution of unjust enrichment do not dispute between the parties, the defendant obtained profits equivalent to the rent by occupying and using each of the lands of this case without any legal cause, and thereby, incurred losses to the plaintiffs equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiffs.

As above, the defendant alleged that he paid the land use compensation in around 1977 with respect to the land of this case, but Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 5 respectively.