A. Defendant C is 32,634,660 won, Defendant D, E, and F respectively, and Defendant C with respect to each of them.

A. The Defendants’ obligation to return unjust enrichment 1) Plaintiffs and the network H are children of the network I, and Defendant C’s wife, Defendant D, E, and F are children of the network H.

B) On December 13, 2010, the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant land”) are 360 square meters in Northern-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

(C) On January 4, 191, 191, the network H completed the registration of initial ownership of each of 1/10 shares of the building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of legacy on November 13, 201.

The network H died on June 16, 2014, and the Defendants inherited the network H’s property.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 7, and the purport of the whole oral argument 2) The owner of a building on the land owned by another person with no authority to do so, barring any special circumstance, shall be viewed as gaining profits equivalent to the rent for the land from another person's property without legal cause, and thereby causing damage to another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da2389, May 8, 1998). Co-owners of the land may use and benefit from the whole land according to their share ratio, unless a majority of shares of co-owners have agreed on the specific method of use and benefit. Thus, if a part of co-owners exclusively occupy and use the whole land, the share of other co-owners among the co-owners is deemed to have exclusively owned the land of this case, and thus, it shall be deemed that there are special circumstances corresponding to the share of the person who did not use or benefit.