1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The plaintiff within the scope of this Court's adjudication is as follows in the first instance court.

The H building in this subsection is jointly owned and its site is below 2.D.

Although the court of first instance requested the return of unjust enrichment from the rent for the reason that each parcel of land is jointly occupied and used without any legal ground, the court of first instance declared that all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

With respect to the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff appealed only on the claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to the land of 13 square meters in light of light (hereinafter “instant land”) and the land of 3 square meters in L roads (hereinafter “instant land 2”) among the part against which the Plaintiff lost.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment against the defendants of this case Nos. 1 and 2.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff and the defendants are siblings, and D are the father of the plaintiff and the defendants.

D around December 202, 2002, purchased H buildings and their surrounding land in light-si E, F, and G, and since around 2004, the construction of H buildings was carried out.

On December 20, 2002, the Defendants completed the registration of transfer of each share ownership on the ground of a sale on November 4, 2002, with respect to the land of 69 square meters in E, 1, 4 square meters in G, 10 square meters in G, 552 square meters in G, and 522 square meters in G, which is the above H building and its neighboring land. The Defendants completed the registration of transfer of each share ownership on the ground of a sale on November 4, 2002. The shares of Defendant B were 24/40, and the shares of Defendant C were 16/40.

The Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer based on sale between April 8, 2003 and July 15, 2005 with respect to the instant land, each of the instant land and each of the instant land, each of which is another neighboring land of the said H building, the Mlux 209 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 3”), Nlux 8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 4”), and the O large 36 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 5”).

Plaintiff

The land and the Defendants owned the instant land Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the 69 square meters E, I large 4 square meters, F large 52 square meters, G large 52 square meters, and G large 522 square meters were incorporated into a site for the instant H building, and the construction was carried out.

(c).