1. According to the selection of the parties at the trial of the party, the appointment of the parties to the trial of the first instance is made to the defendant F and the designated parties.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 20, 2008, Defendant D and Q accepted the extraction of aggregate from 2,536 square meters and W 4,382 square meters in South Won-si to a limited liability company with the purpose of collecting, selling, etc. land aggregates (hereinafter “fireic development”).

B. On June 26, 2008, as a result, on KRW 6,000 per one square meter of land, the chemical development paid KRW 4,602,00 (No. 767 square meters) to Defendant D and KRW 7,956,00 (No. 1,326 square meters) to Q, and additionally paid KRW 1,150,50,50 to Defendant D on January 20, 209.

C. Q died on December 2, 201, and co-inheritors died on December 2, 201, and there are Defendant G, Defendant M, N, andO, one of the children of the Defendant F, designated parties, and AA, as the co-inheritors.

On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the return of aggregate for Defendant D and the net Q from the Gitsung Development. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff notified Defendant D of the fact to the remainder of the Defendants, the heir of the marine net Q, who was the heir of the instant lawsuit.

【Evidence Evidence Nos. 1-3, 4, 2-3, 3-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the development of aggregate was made by paying the price for the use of land to Defendant D and net Q and paying the price for aggregate on the premise that the extraction of aggregate can be carried out separately from the land, but it was confirmed that there was no aggregate storage quantity on the land. Thus, the remaining Defendants, the heir of Defendant D and net Q, should return the claim for the return of aggregate to the Plaintiff, who acquired the claim for the return of aggregate from chemical development.

B. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 12 through 14, in light of the overall purport of the arguments, ignified Development paid money to Defendant D and net Q on two occasions. It is recognized that Defendant D and net Q consented to the extraction of aggregate and the co-defendant B and B of the first instance trial who received the price was returned to the Plaintiff. However, this fact alone is recognized.