1. As to each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 29,791,093 and each of the said respective money, 5% per annum from May 9, 2017 to June 8, 2017.

1. 인정되는 사실 E(2007. 12. 2. 사망)와 F은 부부이고, 그 사이에 원고 A(長男), G(次男), H(長女), 피고(次女), I(三女), 원고 B(四女), 원고 C(五女)을 두었다.

On April 30, 2001 with respect to the "Seoul Jung-gu J building No. 163" (hereinafter "the second floor") of the building, the ownership transfer registration was completed in F on April 30, 2001, and the term of lease was one year with K, etc. (the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million, the rent of KRW 3 million per month).

The F died on June 30, 201, and his co-inheritors are the plaintiffs, the defendants, G, and H. The I was married with Japan and died before the F died, but it is not clear whether his spouse or other heir exists.

On September 4, 2011, six persons, excluding I (or his substitute heir), among F’s co-inheritors, were gathered on September 4, 201, and the following agreements (hereinafter “instant agreements”) were concluded, and both the Plaintiffs, Defendant, G, and H interfered with the said agreements.

The Agreement of this case

1. The store of this case is vowed to register as a co-owned share of A, G, H, D, B, and C.

Provided, That the monthly rent shall be settled at the end of one year, and the expenses for the proposal and the expenses for the management of oxygen shall be paid from the monthly rent, the difference shall be settled at the end of each year, and the difference shall be paid to the above persons, respectively.

The manager above shall consist of two representatives A and D.

2. 1/2 of the shares of 1/2 in the land (G name) in the Gyeongbuk-gun L (G name) is traded and sold to A. 3. F's security deposit of 23 million won and 'M lending 201 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu' were owned by G, and siblingss are all agreed.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1-9 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to (i) the establishment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the store in this case is presumed to be owned by F, the nominal owner, and thus, the net F, including the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.