1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against Defendant D, E, F, and B, and its related thereto.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the real estate listed in the Attachment 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), co-ownership shares with the Plaintiff and the Defendants are registered as shown in the Attached Table 2.

B. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased 428/6210 shares of the instant real estate from Defendant L with respect to the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 30, 201.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants have been holding consultations on the division of the instant real estate.

Attached Form

Defendant B, E, and F respectively possess the part of “A” in the detailed location. The annual rent for the said part of “A” is KRW 488,462 in 2017, and KRW 498,380 in 2018, and annual rent for the said part of “B” is KRW 473,585 in 2017, and KRW 483,503,503 in 2018.

E. On November 15, 2017, Defendant L entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant R, Nonparty S, and collateral security holder, covering the debtor’s share in the instant real estate as KRW 100,000,00 with the maximum debt amount, and on November 16, 2017, the establishment registration of the mortgage was completed.

(hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”). [Grounds for recognition] The following facts: Gap’s right to collateral security; Gap’s right to collateral security; Gap’s right to collateral security; each description; the appraiser U’s right to collateral security; the right to collateral security; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. To arrange the arguments and issues of the parties;

A. (1) The parties’ assertion (1) The instant real estate is not purely co-owned land, not co-owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the exchange value of each land is reduced when the instant real estate is divided in kind, and there is no intent to propose the burden of the instant right to collateral security, and it is inevitable to divide the price through auction.

② The Defendants were in the sectionally owned co-ownership relation to the instant real estate.

Even if Defendant R did not own sectional ownership to the Plaintiff, but sells some of the shares in purely pertaining to the entire real estate of this case, the old ownership of the pertinent real estate is owned.