1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The fact of recognition that Plaintiff A acquired the ownership of 310 of the building E in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu (hereinafter “instant tenement house”) on July 26, 2013, and is currently residing in the Republic of Korea.

Plaintiff

B On August 14, 2002, the ownership of the instant tenement house 210 is acquired, and is currently living in the Republic of Korea.

Meanwhile, Defendant C owned No. 110 of the instant tenement house, but leased it to a third party and did not reside therein.

Defendant D, from around 1993 to around the instant apartment house, had a lot of time for the residents F and 310 of the instant apartment house in front of the instant apartment house to the residents F and 310, and even after renting a packing horse to a third party on around 2000, Defendant D did not receive rent and pay it from January 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 8, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. At around 1993, the Defendants asserted that the instant apartment house was owned by H210, the former owner of the instant apartment house 310, and that the instant apartment house was leased by installing a street store in the front of the instant apartment house and then made a verbal agreement to allocate it to the same 1/3.

At that time, Defendant D received a difference from the street store and distributed it to all the owners.

The Plaintiffs succeeded to the agreement between the former owner and the Defendants as they were.

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the agreed amount, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the agreed amount to the Plaintiffs 9,56,653 won [233,333 won (700,000 won x 1/3) x 41 months] and 3,749,985 won (83 won (23,333 won (23,33-150,000) x 45 months) x 45 months from January 1, 2014 to May 31, 2017 x 333,3333,000) x 3333,3333330,000) x 45 months from June 30, 2017.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Defendants and HI as claimed by the Plaintiffs, and even if there was such an agreement, the said agreement was made.