1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 8 to 10, and 12 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply):

L around 203, on the ground of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M large 248 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), newly constructed the multi-household housing (six households, such as the electric part 101, 201, 202, 201, 301, 302, 401, and 401, and one hundred one of them is the buildings listed in the attached Table; hereinafter the above multi-household building is referred to as “instant building”, and the buildings listed in the attached Table 101, hereinafter referred to as “building”).

The plaintiffs, I, J, and K leased and resided in each section of exclusive ownership of the building from L immediately after the construction of the building in this case. In the case of N real estate auction in the court N real estate auction in this case concerning the land in this case, they acquired the ownership of the land by paying the sale price in full on June 5, 2006 after obtaining a decision to permit the sale as the highest purchaser.

(Co-owned share: 1/7 shares). (b)

O (PP) acquired ownership of the building in question by receiving a decision to permit sale of the building No. 101 as the highest price buyer on August 22, 2008, in the case of a compulsory auction of real estate in relation to each section of exclusive ownership of the building of this case.

C. The Plaintiffs, who are co-owners of the instant land, and I, J, and K filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of the instant building and the delivery of the site and the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, as the court 2009No3091 against the O, who is the owner of the instant building constructed on the said ground.

On August 20, 2010, this Court ruled that O et al. did not have the right to use the land of this case, including statutory superficies, and ruled that the removal and delivery of the aforementioned claims by the plaintiffs, I, J, and K were all cited, but sentenced to a judgment of partial acceptance of the claim for unjust enrichment.