A. The Plaintiffs to be indicated in the claim are equity owners of the 10,908 square meters of Gangwon-gun AK-gun, Seowon-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). The said Defendants, who have divided the above land-based pen building, seek the return of unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant land.

From March 8, 2013 to March 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs asserted that the amount according to the ratio of the size of the Defendants’ exclusive ownership (=the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share 】 (the total size of the area/exclusive ownership area) 】 (the size of the pertinent Defendant’s exclusive ownership/exclusive ownership area)) is unjust enrichment to be borne by the Defendants among the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs’ share from March 8, 2013 to March 7, 2018

However, on November 17, 2016, Defendant Q has already lost ownership as to the section for exclusive use (which appears to have sold the section for exclusive use owned by Defendant G, H, and T). The Plaintiffs calculated the amount of unjust enrichment by each Defendant, on the ground that the area of the section for exclusive use owned by Defendant AB is 184.54 square meters (the actual area is 84.54 square meters) due to mistake, but the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs is merely 1/10 of the amount of unjust enrichment by each Defendant claimed by the Plaintiffs, and it is clear that the amount of money claimed by the Plaintiffs is within the scope of the amount calculated by correcting the error (the calculation details are the same as attached Table 2) or the amount of unjust enrichment corresponding to the actual period of ownership by Defendant Q, etc.

B. Ground of determination 1) G, H, I, J, K, K, L, N,O, P, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AB, AC, AD, AF, AG, AH, AH, AI, AI, and AJ: Defendant Q and AE under Article 208 (3) 2 (i) of the Civil Procedure Act (i.e., by service by public notice) of Article 208 (3) 3 (ii) of the Civil Procedure Act: The above defendant M does not clearly dispute the facts alleged by the plaintiffs in the pleading, and all of them were led to confession.