1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant C corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. As to the part of the underlying facts, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to Defendant C

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion (i.e., the Defendant C indicated the total amount of KRW 1.1.44 billion (92 billion x 1.2 million x 107 months x 107 months) from January 2006 to August 2014 by the J from January 1, 2006 to August 2014. However, the actual number of months from January 2006 to August 2014 is 16 months, and the actual number of months from September 2014 to December 2015 is 16 months. 8.5 million x 2 months), from September 2014 to December 2015, each of which was paid.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the above building, seek a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 193,469,166 [Attachment 1,440,000 x 1,000 x 1/6) (127,500 x 5/24] corresponding to the Plaintiffs’ shares of the above rent that the above Defendant received against Defendant C.

⑵ F 부동산에 대한 청구 ㈎ 피고 C은 F 건물의 임차인들로부터 2006. 1.경부터 J이 사망하기 전인 2014. 7.경까지 합계 3억 9,130만 원을 차임으로 J의 계좌를 이용하여 지급받고도 위 건물의 공유자인 원고들에게 원고들의 지분에 해당하는 차임 상당액을 지급하지 않았다.

E As of September 22, 2002, as the heir died on September 2, 2002, the J independently shall consult with the heir to inherit the F land. F building shall have succeeded to the 3/13 share of the spouse, the Plaintiffs, who are children, and H, I, and Defendant C, respectively, to the 2/13 share of the 3/13 share of the 3/13 share of the her spouse, according to the statutory share of the inheritance, and therefore, the 7th of the grounds for appeal shall seek a return of unjust enrichment against Defendant C, each of the 60,200,000 won

㈏ 가사 위 계좌 명의가 J이어서 피고 C을 상대로 원고들의 직접 부당이득반환청구권이 인정되지 않는다 하더라도, 피고 C이 J 명의의 계좌에서...