1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 47,850,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 47,850,000 for Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 23,925,00 for Plaintiff C and each of the said money.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs, non-party E, F, and the defendant are the successors of Non-party G who died on February 22, 199.

B. On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs, Nonparty E, and F filed a petition for a trial on the division of inherited property against the Defendant. On February 13, 2017, the Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment that “The real estate listed in the attached Form List (hereinafter “instant building”) is divided into co-ownership of the Plaintiff A, B, C, and Defendant according to the respective shares of 2/6, the respective shares of 1/6.”

[2016-Shap1162, 2016-2, 2016-279 (Joint)). The above judgment was finalized by the Seoul High Court’s second instance [2017Bu243, 2017B244 (Joint)], the third instance of the Supreme Court [2017S576, 2017S577 (Joint)].

C. From April 18, 2008, the sum of the rents that the Defendant leased to a third party (such as H company, I company, and J) the instant building is KRW 143,550,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant rent”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the result of each order to submit financial transaction information to K, K, Industrial Bank of Korea, and Seoul Central Post Office to submit each of the financial transaction information, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. If one of the co-owners of the real estate determined as to the cause of the claim leases the real estate to another person without the consent of the other co-owners, the portion exceeding his/her share out of profits therefrom shall be the unjust enrichment acquired without any legal ground and return it. In this case, the scope to be returned shall be the amount equivalent to the rent arising from the lease of the above real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da15318, Jul. 14, 1995). In light of the above legal principles, the facts recognized in this case was public health; and the defendant shall be deemed as unjust enrichment corresponding to the plaintiffs' co-ownership share among the rent in this case against the remaining co-owners. Thus, the defendant shall be deemed as unjust enrichment against the plaintiff A (143,50,000 won x 2/6 x 147,850,000 won x 2/6), and the plaintiff B shall be the plaintiff's unjust enrichment (=143,50,000 won x 2/6).