1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:

A. KRW 39,382,832 and this shall be from May 1, 2017 to March 9, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff, the defendants, E are simplified, and F are the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants.

On April 18, 1973, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendants, E, and F was completed on the ground of the inheritance on January 12, 1973 with respect to D & 216.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(Shares are Plaintiffs 3/9, F, and Defendants B 1/9, E, and Defendant C 2/9). (B)

F around September 29, 1975, on the ground of the instant land, F newly constructed a 3-story house and a nives house (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land, and completed the registration of initial ownership.

On November 11, 2014, F donated the instant building to the Defendants, and on November 12, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant C with respect to shares of 2/3 of the instant building, as to shares of 1/3 of the instant building, in the name of Defendant C and the shares of 1/3 of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The method of management of the jointly owned property to determine that a person who has a majority share in the co-owned property should exclusively use and benefit from a specific part of the co-owned property is lawful. However, even if the specific part is within the scope of his/her own share, the co-owners, including a majority share holder, have to be deemed to have made unjust enrichment corresponding to his/her share in the case of a person suffering damage because he/she did not use and benefit from all other co-owners, even though the specific part is within the scope of his/her share, but does not have any share in other co-owners. This is because all co-owners can enjoy unjust enrichment corresponding to their share in all co-owned property at the ratio of share (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76522, 76539, Jul. 14, 2011). According to such legal doctrine, even if a majority share holder is other co-owners but does not use and benefit from the part.