1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) joints with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the appointed party), KRW 2,659,693, the appointed party D, E, and F.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) are co-owners of the area of 3,527 square meters and 896 square meters in I return (hereinafter “the previous return of this case”), which are the co-owners of the area of 3,527 square meters and I return, and their co-ownership is as indicated in the attached Table ownership share column.

B. The Defendants cultivated the instant paddy field from June 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts finding as to the unjust enrichment, the Defendants may recognize the fact that they occupied and used the answer in the instant case without title to the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, barring any special circumstance, have the duty to return the unjust enrichment from the possession and use to the Plaintiff, etc., who is the owner

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, around 2014, they were permitted to use and cultivate management expenses together with the commitment to pay management expenses from the J entrusted with the management of the instant rice return by the Plaintiff, etc., and that they were not cultivated without permission. However, there is no evidence to deem that the J received management authority and its agency authority from the Plaintiff, etc. who is the owner of the instant rice return. Therefore, the

B. 1) In the event that real estate owned by another person is occupied and used without any legal cause, barring any special circumstance, the amount equivalent to the rent is obligated to be returned as unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da47586, Dec. 9, 1997). Therefore, the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendants should be calculated by multiplying the area and period of possession use by the difference between the area and the period of use. The following is the case where the Defendants determine it by item. 2) In full view of the overall purport of each of the above evidence, the Defendants may acknowledge the fact that

The Defendants asserted that they cultivated only 1,650 square meters among the 4,468 square meters in the previous paddy field of this case, but according to the entries and images of the Gap evidence No. 5.