Defendant 85,838, respectively, against the Plaintiffs.

In this regard, only the defendant appealed to the purport of seeking a change in Article 2(2) of the Judgment of the first instance, which is a judgment on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

Preliminary or selective co-litigation refers to a co-litigation where a claim by a part of a co-litigants is legally incompatible with that by another co-litigants, or where a claim against a part of the co-litigants is legally incompatible with that against another co-litigants.

(Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. In this case, if the defendant's real estate possession is recognized, regardless of whether it is a sole possession, or a joint possession, the defendant shall return all unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.

However, in the case of joint possession, it is only the obligation to return jointly with D as the vicarious debtor.

The claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant and D cannot be deemed as cases where legal compatibility is impossible.

In other words, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed as a preliminary or selective co-litigation within its original meaning under Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning indispensable co-litigation is not applicable mutatis mutandis. Therefore, the validity of the blocking of confirmation due to an appeal has only the appellant and the other party, and it does not extend to the relationship with the other co-litigants.

Therefore, the subject of this court's judgment is limited to the part of the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant, which is the part of the defendant's appeal.

2. The reasons why this Court shall explain in this part are "1. Basic Facts" of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.