2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The company, which is a prior owner, built a building on the land of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu and 1136.8 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building site”) and 12 lots above that of Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership on November 11, 198.

After that, each of the sections of the building of this case and some of the shares of the building of this case were transferred by auction or sale.

B. Defendant B owns a lot of 114 heading 24.50 square meters among the instant buildings, and owns a share of 15.38 square meters of the instant land.

Defendant C and D own 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, and 117 (the aggregate of the above stores is 103.2m2m2) among the instant buildings, and owned 23.15m2 of each of the instant building sites.

C. The Plaintiff purchased a share of 244.4 square meters in the instant land from a stock company and completed the registration of transfer on January 11, 2007, and thereafter owns a share of 51.12 square meters that is currently transferred to another person.

Grounds for Recognition: The entries in Gap 1, 2, and Gap 4-1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s right to use site converted into the size of 114 square meters in a store owned by Defendant B’s assertion is 27.72 square meters.

However, since the above Defendant owns only the share of 15.38 square meters among the instant land, it is occupied and used exceeding the ownership share of 12.34 square meters (27.72 square meters - 15.38 square meters) among the instant land.

The right to use site converted into the area of the stores owned by Defendant C and D is a total of 116.75m2.

However, the said Defendants owned only the share of 46.3 square meters among the instant land, and are occupying and using 70.45 square meters (116.75 square meters - 46.3 square meters) among the instant land in excess of their ownership shares.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share among the areas used in excess (Defendant B is 4.174 square meters, Defendant C and D are 23.831 square meters) as unjust enrichment.