1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are children of Non-party D's third father E, and the defendant is the husband of the deceased deceased deceased deceased deceased F's second father.

B. The previous 1,438 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was originally owned by the network D, and on June 28, 2006, the Plaintiffs and Nonparty H had completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the names of the Plaintiffs and Nonparty H on the grounds of inheritance due to the agreement division as of December 15, 1997.

C. The shares of Plaintiff B were transferred to Nonparty I on October 7, 2008 due to the sale as of September 2, 2008, and the shares of Plaintiff A were transferred to Nonparty J on the same day as of September 2, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had a certificate of the plaintiffs' personal seal impression and a certificate of their personal seal impression. Since the defendant sold 1/3 of the plaintiffs' shares in the land of this case to I and J arbitrarily and received 87,000,000 won each of the purchase price and possessed without any legal ground any benefit equivalent to the same amount, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the above 87,00,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiffs as a return of unjust enrichment.

B. In light of the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 11, witness K’s testimony, and the result of the commission of document delivery to the prosecutor’s office of the competent court of this court, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant arbitrarily sold the plaintiffs’ shares out of the land of this case due to the aforementioned cryptization of evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge this differently, the plaintiffs’ above assertion on the premise that there is no reason to further examine it.

3. If so, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable.