1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and defendant C are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost between the plaintiffs and the defendant C is individual.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is that “Defendant C” is “Defendant C”; “Plaintiffs 3; “Plaintiffs 13”; “Defendants 4; “Defendants 20”; “Plaintiffs 4; “Defendants 21”; “Defendants 4; “Defendants 5 3”; “Defendants” “Defendants 1”; “Defendants 5 5 3 7 1” in the main sentence of “Defendant C”; “Defendant 1” in the judgment of the court of first instance; “No. 2 through 8; “No. 10”; “No. 11; and “No. 13” in the second sentence of “No. 10; “No. 13” in the judgment of the court of first instance 5 1; “No. 11, No. 11, No. 13; and “No. 1, No. 51, No. 250; and “No. 3,” in the name of Defendant C; and “No. 10 3” in the following 5 3.

(However, the part on the Joint Defendant E of the first instance court, which became separate and conclusive, is excluded). 2. Determination on Defendant C’s assertion

A. The effect of the No. 2 lease agreement that Defendant C’s assertion net F entered into on behalf of Defendant C does not extend to Defendant C.

Therefore, Plaintiff A is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 6, 2014, which is the beginning date of the occupation of Plaintiff A, and from December 17, 2014, the starting date of the occupation of Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B is obliged to pay unjust enrichment to Defendant C, which is equivalent to the rent from June 6, 2014, which is the starting date of the occupation. If Defendant C is liable to compensate for unjust enrichment, Defendant C shall offset the above unjust enrichment against Defendant C’s claim for damages.

(b).