1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 3, 12, 13, and 2, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a 4-story building on the G of Gyeonggi-gu G from F and the same year.

8. 19. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer concerning the above building.

B. Around February 2006, F entered into a lease agreement with Defendant E on the fourth floor (attached Form No. 502; hereinafter “the instant studio”) of the instant 4th floor of the building (hereinafter “instant studio”).

From around that time, Defendant E had Defendant C residing in the studio of this case, and Defendant B, the wife of Defendant C, also resided in the studio of this case.

Defendant D was the son of Defendant B, and the moving-in report was made on December 9, 2008 to the studio of this case.

C. Since 2010, the Defendants paid F or the Plaintiff the studio of the instant case.

On the other hand, on August 29, 2007, Defendant E’s East-gun J and six parcels (hereinafter “J land”) were sold to I for KRW 250 million. At H’s request, Defendant E paid the above purchase price to F, KRW 100 million on August 29, 2007, KRW 100 million on August 30, 2007, and KRW 50 million on October 10, 2007, respectively.

E. H filed a lawsuit against F on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 250 million in J land purchase price, as Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2016Gahap5756, which was the case related thereto; hereinafter “related case”).

As to KRW 50 million among the primary claims, on the ground that the lease contract for the room of this case was terminated, Defendant C’s vicarious exercise of the right to refund the deposit deposit amounting to KRW 50 million against Defendant C was the cause of claiming the vicarious exercise of the right to refund the deposit deposit amounting to KRW 50 million against Defendant C. Although Defendant E’s obligation to the remainder of KRW 200 million was extinguished due to Defendant E’s repayment, Defendant E claimed as the cause of claiming the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that

On June 28, 2017, the above court held that the portion of KRW 50 million among the primary claims is subrogated by the creditor.