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

The Defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties, and 14,017.

1. The reasons for the entry in this part of the facts of the instant case and this part of the obligation to return unjust enrichment are as follows: “The instant land” listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 5 is as “real estate (hereinafter “instant land”); “the instant multi-household house” listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 is as “real estate (hereinafter “the instant multi-household house”); “the area specified in subparagraph 2” below the third part is as “No. 3 and subparagraph 3”; “the area specified in subparagraph 9, 10” listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 9, and “the instant multi-household house No. 420” is as “the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter “multi-household house No. 4”; “the instant multi-household house No. 5,” and “the instant multi-household E”). In accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, each of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 1.

2. Scope of return of unjust enrichment

(a) In the case of an aggregate building, the owner of a section of exclusive ownership without a right to use the site shall return the amount equivalent to the rent for the area corresponding to the share to be registered as the site ownership of that section of exclusive ownership as unjust enrichment to the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da72779, 72886, Jan. 27, 2011).

In this case, (1) The ratio of the site ownership in this case for multi-household housing D and E: 72.21/21/21/216.63 (the total area of exclusive ownership for multi-household housing in this case 72.21/1/10 of the area of exclusive ownership for multi-household housing in this case x 3) calculated on October 23, 2013 to January 31, 2017: 14,017,286 won (21,025,930 won x 14.2/216.63, and less than won ; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B) On February 7, 2017, the part of unjust enrichment on the instant multi-household E from the date the Defendant lost ownership of the instant multi-household house D to the date the Defendant lost to the date of completion of delivery of the instant land: KRW 199,943 (won 59,830 x 72.21/216.63) 3, the Plaintiffs, as to this, are the same.