1. The defendant,

A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 436,737,409, Plaintiff B’s KRW 291,158,272, and each of the said money, May 1, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1 and 2 of the facts of recognition No. 1 and 2 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiffs and the defendant are children of Non-Party D (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the plaintiffs and the non-party E, the spouse of the deceased, inherited each of the real estate of this case, and owned the plaintiff A’s 3/7 shares, the plaintiff B’s 2/7 shares, and the defendant and E own 1/7 shares, respectively, and the defendant from May 1990 to obtain lease profit by leasing each of the real estate of this case without consultation with the plaintiffs.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) A co-owner may use and benefit from all the co-owners at their share ratio, and matters relating to management of the co-owner's share ratio. Thus, if one of the co-owners occupies and uses the property exclusively without the consent of a majority of share ratio, then the other co-owners are making unjust enrichment corresponding to their share ratio (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13948, Dec. 11, 2001). In this case, the plaintiffs, the defendant, and E share each of the real estate in this case, but the defendant who is a minority right holder owns and uses the above real estate independently from May 190 to April 30, 205 without any consultation with the plaintiffs from May 1990 to May 10, 200, the defendant returned the money corresponding to the plaintiffs' share ratio from May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2015 to the above plaintiffs' share ratio from May 15, 2005.