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. On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of public sale on October 29, 201 with respect to Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Road 291 square meters (hereinafter “One Land”). Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of public sale on December 29, 2010, on December 23, 2010, with respect to the land of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Road 11 square meters (hereinafter “Second Land”); and when the total land is referred to as “each of the instant lands”, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of public sale on November 26, 2010.

B. 1) Notification No. 3 of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 18, 1969 (hereinafter “Notification of this case”).

The section from Gangdong-gu Seoul E to F (the width of 6m, extension of 324m) was determined as urban planning facilities (the road of small 3m). The land was included in this section. 2) Meanwhile, according to the instant notice, the section from Gangdong-gu Seoul to H (the width of 6m, extension of 305m) was determined as urban planning facilities (the road of small 3m).

The second land was included in this section.

3) Each of the instant lands is currently being used for the passage of vehicles and pedestrians as a road on which asphalt is packed. Furthermore, the land is parked with a parking line, and a utility pole is installed, and the land is installed with a utility pole. [Grounds for Recognition] There is no dispute, A, 1, 5, 15, 5, 5, 5, 19, 20 copies (including the number of pages in the case of land number; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the instant land.

each entry or video, the whole purport of the pleading;

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant without any title occupies and uses each of the lands of this case owned by the plaintiffs as roads.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession and use of each land of this case, such as the written purport of the claim.

3. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is the fact that each of the instant lands was owned by the Plaintiffs, as seen earlier, whether the Defendant occupied each of the instant lands or not.