1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

For the plaintiffs:

A. As to Defendant D, 14,698,239 won and this, respectively.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judgment of the first instance court Nos. 4 to 3-4 on each of the instant lands

B. As to each land of this case, “The ground for the agreement as referred to in paragraph 2 and the agreement to distribute earnings on each of the above land”

B. (2) The judgment of the first instance court of the first instance was cited as "for reasons for the conclusion of an agreement as referred to in paragraph (2)" and the "Revocation of the judgment of the first instance court by citing an appeal" of No. 13 of the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance court was changed to "a partial citing appeal to alter the judgment of the first instance court by altering the judgment", and the "the Jeju District Court" of No. 1 in the fifth part of the judgment of the first instance court was revised to "Seopopopopo Office of the Jeju District Court", and the second part and the third part of the judgment of the second part and the third part are added to "the defendant occupies and uses each of the land of this case by cultivating wruds fruit trees as wrud tree orchard, with the exclusion of the plaintiffs," and "the grounds for recognition" of the third part of the judgment of the first instance court of the fifth part "No. 1-1 or 11, A evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3, and No. 1" as a whole statement.

2. Determination:

A. After the Defendants’ acquisition of unjust enrichment, the part of the Plaintiffs asserted that, according to the agreement of this case, the deceased contributed the disposal price for the land owned by the deceased as the auction price for each land of this case, and that Defendant D’s co-ownership was performed. As such, Defendant D was obligated to pay the deceased the proceeds of the instant land operation after the purchase of each land of this case on or after August 1, 2001.

The plaintiffs' above assertion is that the deceased has a duty to contribute the price of his bid to the contents of the contract of this case.