1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

The grounds for appeal by the Defendants do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if each evidence submitted to the first instance court is presented, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence submitted to this court is presented (in full view of the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants have a legitimate ground to believe that the Defendants had a title, including the right to recover the land in question). The grounds for appeal by the court of first instance are the same as the grounds for the first instance judgment, in addition to deletion of the “or the date on which the Defendants lost their ownership” in the second instance under the fifth page of the first instance judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition 1-B of the judgment of first instance.

The phrase “or the date on which the Plaintiff loses ownership” in paragraph (1) is widely used in the text of the judgment ordering the continuous and repeated payment of future unjust enrichment, but the phrase “not later than the date on which the Plaintiff loses ownership” is not desirable as the text of the judgment of performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da244432 Decided February 14, 2019). In addition, it is evident that the written application for the modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case as of March 20, 2019 does not state “by the date on which the Plaintiff loses its ownership” is written. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.