1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 109,921,620 for each of the Plaintiffs as well as their respective 109,921,620 for each of them, from November 16, 2016 to October 18, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants and the network G are children of the network H, and the Plaintiffs are children of the network G.

B. The deceased G owned 37/132 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 of the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and 1/3 shares of each of the instant 6 real estate. As the deceased on January 17, 2013, the Plaintiffs inherited 37/396 shares of each of the instant 1 through 4 real estate, each of the instant 6 real estate, respectively.

C. When organizing the ownership relationship of the real estate of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is listed in the following table:

[Real Estate Ownership Relation] Plaintiff A 37/396 Plaintiff B B 37/396 Plaintiff C37/396 Defendant D 63/396 Defendant E 111/396 Defendant E 111/396 Defendant F 2, title 3 real estate of this case, title 5 real estate of this case, title 4 real estate of this case, title 1/3, Defendant E 1/3, Defendant F1/3, Defendant F1/9 of this case, title 6 real estate of this case, title 5 real estate of this case, title 3 real estate of this case, title 4 real estate of this case, title 1/9 B 1/9, Plaintiff D 1/9, Defendant D 4/9, Defendant D 1/9, Defendant F 1/99

D. The Defendants, while managing the instant 4, 6 real estate (the instant 1 to 3 real estate is the site of the instant 4 real estate, and the instant 5 real estate is the site of the instant 6 real estate) up to now, received the difference from the lessees of each of the said real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Where one of the co-owners of the real estate in which the claim for return of unjust enrichment occurred gains profits from leasing the real estate to another party, he/she is obligated to return the portion exceeding his/her share as gains without any legal ground.

The Defendants were paid the difference in managing the 4 and 6 real estate of this case, which is co-owners.