1. Defendant Ehy Association shall provide for the Plaintiffs, and Form 2, Annex 1, and b. of Annex 2, among Annex 1’s fourth floor of the building listed in Annex 1’s Schedule.

1. Basic facts

A. Of the three floors of the instant building, Plaintiff A owns No. 301, No. 116.47 square meters (1,391/1,391/1, 71.495), No. 302, 88.69 square meters (1,391/1,391/1,) and Plaintiff B owns No. 303, No. 104.86 square meters (6.3682/1,391/1, 64.391) and Plaintiff C owns 304 heading 265.13 square meters (1,391/1,398/1,00) and Plaintiff D owns 305 square meters (50.7346/1,391/1,00).

B. On May 28, 2010, Defendant E-I (hereinafter “Defendant church”) completed the registration of ownership transfer of 401 heading 71.80 square meters among the fourth floor of the instant building, and uses the said 401 square meters from that time, and Defendant F is the representative of the Defendant church.

C. The Defendants attempted to extend the rooftop of this case around June 2010, but discontinued due to civil petitions filed by sectional owners of the instant building.

However, between September 21, 2010 and September 23, 2010, the Defendants extended the instant building on the rooftop (the common part of the instant building belongs to the co-ownership of all sectional owners) without consultation with sectional owners. D.

After that, the defendant church uses the building of this case as a wedding room.

The instant building is currently unregistered as an unauthorized building.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1- 5 and images, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the appraiser G’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for removal and delivery of the building and the return of unjust enrichment

A. Since the Defendants asserted that the instant building was extended without consultation with other sectional owners, they exclusively occupy the instant building, they should remove the instant building and deliver the instant rooftop part.

In addition, the Defendants should return to the Plaintiffs the benefit equivalent to the usage fee (from September 21, 2010 to November 9, 2012) that was obtained by occupying the instant rooftop part.

B. Removal of one building to determine the claim against Defendant F constitutes a final disposition of ownership.