1. For the plaintiffs:

A. Defendant C is each point of the attached Form 1, 7, 10.9 1, among the area of 18.3 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From June 18, 1990 to June 18, 1990, Plaintiff A owns 2/4 shares among the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Froposite 18.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); Plaintiff B owns 1/4 shares among the instant land from June 11, 2015 to June 1/4 shares.

B. Defendant C purchased Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H and I Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant building”) from G on December 15, 2004 and completed the registration of ownership in its name on December 21, 2004 and owns it until now.

C. The building of this case is indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 7, 10 among the land of this case;

9.1. The part (B) which connects each point of (a) part (a) of the ship connected in order to each point of 2.2 square meters and the part (b) which connects each point of 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 8, and 6 of the annexed drawing(s) are 1.1 square meters, respectively (hereinafter “the part of the building in question”), and the specific status are as shown in the annexed drawing(s).

Defendant D operates J Real Estate in the part of the instant building, and Defendant E operates K in the part of (b) of the instant building.

E. The monthly rent of the part of the instant land reaches KRW 303,130 as of October 4, 2018, KRW 45,295, and KRW 348,425, as of October 4, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including a provisional number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the survey appraisal, the result of the rent appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C, a co-owner of the land of this case, has the obligation to remove the part of the building of this case established on the ground, deliver the land of this case, and return the amount equivalent to the rent for the part of this case in unjust enrichment. Defendant D has the obligation to withdraw from (a) part of the land of this case, and Defendant E has the obligation to withdraw from (b) part of the land of this case.

On the other hand, since Defendant C is all co-owners of the instant land who suffered damages by using the instant land at will, the Plaintiffs are their co-ownership shares against Defendant C.