1. The defendant,

(a) Plaintiff A, (i) 41,689,525 won, and 5% per annum from October 29, 2013 to March 14, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D, the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), died on September 11, 2007, and succeeded to the network D (hereinafter “the network”) by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, E, F, G, H, and I.

B. On July 2010, the Defendant filed a claim against the aforementioned inheritors, including the Plaintiffs, for the division of the contributory portion and the inherited property with this Court 2010Rahap29, and on May 27, 2011, a compulsory adjustment was finalized to the effect that the instant real estate, which is an inherited property, is to be divided in kind in the following shares (hereinafter “instant compulsory adjustment”).

The heir shares 198/450 Plaintiffs and E, respectively, 63/450 G, H, and I 14/450

C. After the death of the deceased, the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant real estate without any specific consultation with the remaining inheritors until the closing of the argument in the instant case.

On the other hand, among each real estate of this case, a voluntary auction procedure was conducted with respect to the Plaintiff B’s share, and sold to a third party on December 24, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. Co-owners may use and make profits 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 co-owners' shares. Thus, if one of the co-owners exclusively occupies and uses the common property without the consent of a majority of shares among the co-owners as to the method of use and profit-making, then the other co-owners shall make unjust enrichment corresponding to their shares (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da13948, Dec. 11, 2001).

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs and the defendant share each of the real estate of this case with each of the above shares retroactively at the time of the commencement of the inheritance due to the confirmation of compulsory mediation of this case.

Unless there are special circumstances, shares among co-owners.