beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 87,687,205 for each of the 87,687,205 for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C, and KRW 88,090,606 for the Appointed E.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff and the selected children C, D, F, and the defendant are born between the non-party deceased G and the selected children E.
B. From June 1, 1994 to March 2, 2015, Plaintiff, E, C, and D (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) owned 1/6 shares of each of 1/6 shares of five business facilities and neighborhood facilities (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Defendant and F, and owned 4 of the Plaintiff, etc., Defendant, and F owned 1/6 shares of each of the instant real estate and owned 1/6 shares of each of the instant real estate with the designated parties D (3.79/60), and F (60/60), and 1/72 of the instant real estate transferred 1/60 to the Defendant and F (1.72/60), and J (62/72).
C. As seen subsequent to the fact that the appointed party E was in charge of the instant real estate management and the Defendant was in charge of the instant real estate management, there is a dispute between the parties as to when the time when the Defendant commenced the instant real estate management;
After that, until July 2013, the Defendant received rent from the lessees of part of the instant real estate while managing the instant real estate solely by July 2013, and operated a health club (hereinafter “K”) with the trade name “K” in the remaining part of the instant real estate and acquired profits therefrom.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. If a part of the co-owners of the real estate determined on the cause of the claim exclusively possess and use the entire real estate, the share among the other co-owners is deemed to have been the unjust enrichment corresponding to the share of the person, but the use and profit-making is not made to the person.
Therefore, according to the above basic facts, the defendant is exclusively in accordance with the above basic facts. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da17803 delivered on October 11, 2002).