A. On October 20, 2005, Defendant B, a successor, owned the shares 894/8208 shares, Defendant C’s 596/8208 shares, Defendant D’s 596/8208 shares, Defendant D’s 596/8208 shares, and Defendant E’s 596/8208 shares shares, respectively, owned the share at the rate of 298/8208 shares. < Amended by Act No. 7296, Oct. 20, 2005; Act No. 8337, Oct. 20, 2005; Act No. 5208 shares, Defendant D’s 596/8208 shares, and Defendant E inherited the shares in 596/8208 shares.

B. On August 25, 2009, Defendant A, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Defendant-Co-owners”) filed a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da317139, hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”) on the ground that, by managing the instant land against Jung-gu, it actually obtains pecuniary advantage equivalent to the rent without any legal cause from managing the instant land, and thereby, the Defendant-Co-owners suffered economic loss equivalent to the same amount of the rent. However, on December 9, 2010, the said court rejected the Defendant-1’s exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land by giving up the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land to other residents, which is the co-owners of the instant land, in order to secure or increase the utility value of the remaining land divided at the time of the division of the instant land, and then sell it to others.

C. On July 2, 2012, the Seoul Northern District Court applied by Defendant G, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security regarding Defendant F shares among the instant land on July 2, 2012.