1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The defendants' lawsuit acceptance is limited.

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was originally owned by D. D on September 11, 2007, and D succeeded to D (hereinafter “the deceased”) by Plaintiffs and C, E, F, G, H, and I.

B. On July 2010, C filed a claim for the division of the contributory portion and inherited property against the aforementioned inheritors, including the Plaintiffs, by this Court No. 2010-Ma29, and on May 27, 2011, a compulsory adjustment was finalized to the effect that the instant real estate, which is inherited property, is to be divided in kind in the following shares (hereinafter “instant compulsory adjustment”).

Inheritor Equity C 198/450 Plaintiffs and E, respectively, 63/450 G 21/450 G, H, and I 14/450

C. C has occupied and used each of the instant real estate before the deceased’s death. Even after the deceased’s death, C has continuously occupied and used it without any particular consultation with the remaining inheritors.

C A. On July 23, 2014, while the instant lawsuit was pending, died on July 23, 2014, and succeeded C by Defendant M and children, the spouse, Defendant N andO, and the Defendants took over the instant lawsuit.

On the other hand, among each real estate of this case, a voluntary auction procedure was conducted with respect to the Plaintiff B’s share, and sold to a third party on December 24, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. Co-owners may use and make profits from all the co-owners in proportion to their shares, and the matters concerning the management of the co-owned property shall be determined by a majority of co-owners' shares. Thus, if one of the co-owners exclusively occupies and uses the common property without the consent of a majority of shares among the co-owners as to the method of use and profit-making, then the other co-owners shall make unjust enrichment corresponding to their shares (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da13948, Dec. 11, 2001).

According to the above facts of recognition, this case is examined.