2. B

3. C.

4. Stock companies D.

2. G:

3. H;

4. I

5. J.

6. L.

7. M;

8. V:

The costs of appeal by plaintiffs B, C, and D are assessed against the above plaintiffs.

With respect to the judgment below on Defendant V, no statement is made in the appellate brief.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal against Defendant F, G, I, J, L, and M

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court: (a) agreed that Plaintiff D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff D”) agreed to pay in lieu of the payment of the construction price claim against AC, AF, AG, and H; and (b) determined that the said Defendants lawfully acquired the right to possess and use each of the relevant households from the Defendant M delegated by the said Defendants, etc.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by violating the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal against Defendant H

A. On September 21, 2007, the lower court determined that: (a) Plaintiff D agreed to pay in kind 301 of the instant apartment complex in lieu of the repayment of the claim for the construction price against AD; (b) on March 15, 2008, Defendant M delegated all rights to the settlement and recovery of the claim for the construction price to Defendant M; (c) on June 2008, Defendant M allowed Defendant M to occupy the above 301 possession of the above 301 possession from June 2008 to October 2008; (d) Plaintiff D transferred the ownership of the above 301 ownership to Plaintiff D Co., Ltd. on April 15, 2010; and (e) on the same day, Defendant H lawfully dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment from Plaintiff D’s owner, who was delegated by Plaintiff D to receive payment in lieu of Plaintiff D’s 301 on the same day; and (e) on the same premise, Defendant H lawfully lawfully acquired and returned the right to possession and return of the claim.

B. In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that Defendant H acquired the right to possess and use a legitimate right based on the rights of AD at the time of acquiring the possession of Defendant H 301, and there is no error in violation of logical and empirical rules and beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

However, according to the records, from the lawsuit filed by AD against the Plaintiff et al. (the Changwon District Court Decision 2013Da30493, 2013Gahap30509 (Counterclaim), 23 December 2013, 2013, AD waivers all of the rights related to the above 301, and A/he waivers the counterclaim claim for unjust enrichment arising from possession and use under 301. The Plaintiff asserted that A et al., through a preparatory document dated January 8, 2014, lost the source of possession right under the above conciliation of AD.

Thus, Defendant H cannot refuse the Plaintiff A’s request for extradition and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground of the right to possess and use the above 301 on the ground of the right of possession and use based on AD after the completion of the conciliation. As such, the lower court should have ordered the delivery of the above 301 and should have deliberated on the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by Defendant H by examining the contents of the above conciliation provision.

Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that Defendant H had the right to lawfully possess and use the above 301 without making a judgment on the Plaintiff’s above assertion. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the right to possess an article and omitting judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against Defendant H is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All remaining appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal by Plaintiff B, C, and D are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han