A. On July 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant newly constructed a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and acquired shares of 1/2.

The Plaintiff: (a) held a title trust with C, one-half shares owned by the Plaintiff; (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 27, 2010; (c) the Defendant held a title trust with D, who owns one-half shares, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future on August 27, 2009.

B. The Defendant, without consultation with the Plaintiff, leased KRW 101 out of the first floor of the instant building to E from February 25, 2013 to November 27, 2015, KRW 20,000,000 per month, and KRW 400,000 per month. ② From May 5, 2014 to June 30, 2016, the remainder of the first floor of the instant building was leased to F and was paid from the said lessee for each period.

C. In addition, without consultation with the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant consulted with C as a right holder at the time of occupancy and received a written statement of performance, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

On September 17, 2009, the building of this case was occupied by the third floor of the building of this case until August 26, 2016.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim 1) A co-owner of the relevant legal doctrine may use and benefit from all the co-owners in proportion to their shares, and the matters concerning the management of the co-owned property shall be determined by a majority of shares of co-owners. As such, if one of the co-owners occupies and uses the property exclusively without the consent of a majority of shares among the co-owners as to the specific method of use and profit-making, then the other co-owners shall make unjust enrichment equivalent to their shares (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da49307, Nov. 24, 2006).