1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Of the operation of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, the indication of the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 1.

In full view of the purport of the statements and arguments as indicated in Gap 1, 2, and 4, the plaintiffs shared 1/2 shares in the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and the defendant's children D, on July 16, 2004, leased from the plaintiffs and other co-owners at the time, part (a) part (a) of 330 square meters in the attached sheet among the operation of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate in this case") connected each point in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 1, and 320,000 won (excluding value-added tax) by reducing the rent for each month after the lease. The defendant, from May 2016, registered the real estate in this case as E with the trade name of E, and thereafter, paid the plaintiffs the amount of 3,50,000 won including the value-added tax equivalent to the monthly rent until February 2, 2018.

According to the above facts, the defendant possessed the real estate of this case without legitimate title. The defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs who are owners and pay the amount equivalent to the monthly rent for the real estate of this case from March 1, 2018 to return unjust enrichment.

With regard to the amount of unjust enrichment return, the plaintiffs claim 3.520,000 won for monthly rent including value added tax.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs are claiming for the exclusion of interference by ownership, which is not a claim under a lease agreement, and they seek return of unjust enrichment from illegal possession to the defendant, and there is a separate agreement between the parties to the transaction to bear the value-added tax, they may file a claim under the agreement. However, in the case of this case, there is no value-added tax agreement with the defendant, but no lease agreement was concluded with the defendant and no value-added tax agreement was made. Thus, the amount of return of unjust enrichment is equivalent to 3.2 million won, excluding value-added tax.

Therefore, the defendant has the real estate of this case against the plaintiffs.