All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs could not exercise the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the royalty on the instant land on the premise of the exclusive and exclusive right to use the instant land, on the grounds that, as theO provided the instant land as a passage passage to ensure the utility value of the instant land to be sold at the time of the partial sale of the instant land by dividing it into a way, the Plaintiff knew that the instant land was used as a passage of another landowner at the time of acquiring the instant land, and that the Plaintiffs knew that it was used as a passage of another landowner at the time of acquiring the instant land, and that theO acquired the land from around 1964 to the time when the Plaintiffs acquired the exclusive and exclusive right to use the instant land, with the knowledge of the circumstances that the remaining owners used as a passage without compensation, for 50 years from the time of acquiring the instant land.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in matters of law such as misunderstanding of facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, misunderstanding of facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to limitation of the exercise of exclusive right to use, legal principle, absolute nature of ownership, Articles 219

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since they differ from the instant case.

Therefore, it is therefore.