2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the oral argument in the statement No. 3, as to the building indicated in the separate sheet No. 7273, Jan. 14, 2004; No. 2753, Jun. 15, 2003; and No. 3/15, Oct. 15, 2003; and No. 2/15, respectively, in the name of the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiff”); and No. 7273, Feb. 11, 2011; No. 2/75 shares transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff and designated parties; and No. 3/15 shares transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff and designated parties; and No. 3/75, Feb. 11, 2011, the Plaintiff and the designated parties seek ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff and the designated parties to the above building; according to the facts that the Defendants were entitled to have ownership exemption from the above building.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they have the right to possess the above building, but the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. The Plaintiff and the designated parties against the Defendants seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the above building at the rate of KRW 300,000 per month, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission alone is the difference of the above building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the rent of the Plaintiff is the difference of the above building. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for rent is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is partially accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.