1. The plaintiff

A. The remainder of the Defendants, excluding Defendant Heungjin Construction Co., Ltd. and the State Salary Construction Co., Ltd., are attached.

1. Basic facts

A. The following land is the site of the multi-unit building DBD (attached Form 1) and its ownership relationship is as follows:

In order to acquire the Plaintiff’s ownership on November 11, 2009, 2009, Gyeongnam-do, Yangsan-si, Yangsan-do, Yangsan-do, Yangsan-do (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s site”) on June 9, 2005, the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership on June 16, 201 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) on G-do, Yangsan-do, Yangsan-do, Yangyang-do, Yangsan-do, Yangsan-do, Seoul-do, Yangsan-do, Yangsan-do, J. 109 square meters on June 16, 2010, J ownership on June 16, 2010.

B. The defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants by the sequence listed in the annexed list of "the defendant") are owned by the persons who were or were the former sectional owners of Dogra, as listed in the annexed list.

C. Meanwhile, in around 2007, F was sentenced to the judgment that “Defendant 12 shall pay to the Plaintiff money at the rate of KRW 1,235,00 per month from May 12, 2007 and from May 12, 2007 to the date of the loss of ownership of the Plaintiff’s land or the date of the loss of possession of the State-owned Salary Construction” by filing a lawsuit against Defendant 12, the owner of Down, newly constructed at the time, seeking the payment of unjust enrichment on the Plaintiff’s land (Seoul District Court 2007Gadan59604, 207).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition that the claim for return of unjust enrichment was established, since the Defendants, the owner of the land owned by the Plaintiff, possess or occupy the land owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent according to their respective shares in exclusive ownership.

B. According to the statement in evidence No. 2 of unjust enrichment amount, in the case that H filed against the Defendant, etc. (Seoul District Court 2014Kadan168588), the court entrusted the appraiser K with the appraisal, and according to the appraisal result, the monthly rent for the above H site can be acknowledged as follows, and the Plaintiff’s rent for the site is also the same.