1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case which is used in the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. On the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 4-3-4 of the judgment of the court of first instance has been cut down as follows.

The appeal was dismissed (Jinsan High Court (original High Court 2015B1, Changwon 2016B1) and the defendant re-appealed on December 29, 2016, but the reappeal was also dismissed.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016SS121). From 5th to 6th 7th 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

According to the above facts, each of the real estate in this case is owned by the plaintiff A 3/13 and the remaining plaintiffs at the ratio of 2/13 shares from July 20, 2005, the date of inheritance commencement according to the inheritance division trial, except in extenuating circumstances.

From 7, 21 to 8, 12 of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows:

According to the facts that the defendant occupied and used each of the instant real estate without a legitimate title, he obtains the profits from the use of the said real estate, and due to this, he causes damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are obligated to return unjust enrichment according to their respective inheritance shares.

The 9th judgment of the court of first instance shall consist of 12th to 17th judgments as follows:

Ultimately, the Defendant: (i) KRW 66,103,312 to Plaintiff A (=3/13 x 286,447,688), KRW 44,068,875 to Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F respectively (=2/13 x 286,47,688) and KRW 57,289,537, KRW 38,193,025 to Plaintiff A, which is the part cited by the first instance judgment, among them, and KRW 38,193,025 to Plaintiff A, who is the part cited by the first instance judgment, after the date of delivery of the instant complaint, sought by the Plaintiffs from September 15, 2015 to December 7, 2016; and (ii) it is reasonable to grant the Defendant an objection as to the existence or scope of the obligation.