beta
Text
1. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.
The defendants are the defendants.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. F owned and managed the land listed in the separate sheet and the 18-generation multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant land and building”) on that ground, and died on February 11, 2009. At that time, the heir of the deceased was the deceased’s wife, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, three children of the previous wife, respectively, and the inheritance share ratio is Plaintiff 3/9 and the Defendants 2/9.
B. After the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff received rent for the instant building from the lessee while using and earning profit from Nos. 304 and 305 of the instant building, and concluded a new lease contract with the lessor as the Plaintiff with respect to some of the houses, and leased and managed the instant land and buildings by leasing and managing the instant lease deposit and rent.
C. Accordingly, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on June 14, 2012 that “The Defendants divided the instant land and buildings into ownership of 2/9 shares and 3/9 shares, respectively (the judgment became final and conclusive around that time),” and filed a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the transfer of the instant building and the return of unjust enrichment from March 2009.”
[Plaintiff filed a counterclaim for partition of co-owned property [Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap71614, 2013Gahap52863 (Counterclaim), hereinafter “related lawsuit”). D.
From June 2012, the Defendants entered into a new lease agreement with the lessor (or a part of the Defendant) by succeeding to the duty to return the lease deposit owed by the Plaintiff as the lessor with respect to seven units (102, 103, 205, 301, 303, 403, and 405) among the 18 units of the instant building, and subsequently, after September 6, 2013, the Defendants received eight units of the instant building from the Defendants.
E. On October 10, 2013, the first instance court held that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff among the instant buildings against the Defendants.