The acquisition of land ownership that is not subject to the restriction on the prohibition of separate disposal under the Aggregate Buildings Act is valid.

Since the ownership of the land which was owned by a person who is not a sectional owner of an aggregate building before it was constructed as a site of an aggregate building regardless of the ownership of a section of exclusive ownership is not subject to the prohibition of separate disposal under Article 20 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the acquisition of land ownership through a public sale procedure shall be valid.

Article 20 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

Incheon District Court 2017Gahap53605 Registration of Ownership Transfer

○○ 10 others

Ma-○

Intervenor joining the Intervenor

Korea

November 13, 2018

1.01.08

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) Payment of 5% per annum from April 24, 2018 to January 8, 2019, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, respectively, of each amount entered in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 2, and each amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. From March 1, 2018, the amount calculated by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (1) loses ownership of 454 square meters in Incheon***77-40 square meters in 77-40 square meters, or (2) each Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays the amount calculated at each of the rates stated in the separate sheet in the separate sheet in the separate sheet 2 attached hereto, from the date of termination of the possession of the above land through each building to the date of arrival of each of the dates of termination of the possession of the above land.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim and the remainder of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) claim are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder, respectively, by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

4. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

In the principal lawsuit: Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to each share stated in the separate sheet No. 1 for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”).

Counterclaim: The plaintiffs shall pay to the defendant 5% interest per annum from the delivery date of a copy of the counterclaim to the pronouncement date of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment. (2) The "Amount equivalent to the monthly rent for the attached Table 2" from March 1, 2018 to the date of demolition of each building mentioned in the "Annex 2" column shall be paid at the end of each month as of the end of each month (the due date for order to perform the future is due as well as the due date for the performance of the obligation will continue to exist until the date of the closing of argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2151, Sept. 22, 1987). The plaintiffs shall not be deemed to have any infringement of the plaintiffs' right to own each of the above sites prior to the completion date of argument or any right to possess each of the above sites, and shall not be deemed to have been permitted until the expiration date of argument of the plaintiffs' right to own each of the land.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Status, etc. of parties

피고는 2006. 9. 27. 지■■의 소유였던 인천 **구 **동 77-40 대 454㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)에 권리자를 대한민국(처분청: 세무서)으로 하여 마쳐진1993. 5. 17.자 압류등기 등에 후속된 공매절차를 통해, 이 사건 토지를 매수하였고, 2006. 10. 4. 위 토지에는 위 공매를 원인으로 한 피고 명의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다. 원고들은 이 사건 토지 위에 건축된 집합건물(다세대주택)인 '◈◈빌라' 제104동(이하 '이 사건 집합건물'이라 한다)의 구분소유자들이다 {갑 제4, 5호증(가지번호 있는 것은 특정 가지번호를 명시하지 아니하는 한 모든 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)}.

B. Change, etc. of ownership of the instant land and its neighboring land

1) 지■■의 아버지인 지▼▼은 1990. 7. 16. 건축업자인 손와, **동 산146-7(1992. 3. 31. **동 77-35로 등록전환되고, 같은 날 이 사건 토지를 비롯한 **동 77-36 내지 77-43 등으로 분할되었다) 위에 근린상가 두 동과 다세대주택 수개 동을 신축하는 내용의 공사도급계약을 체결하였는데, 지▼▼이 1991. 5. 8. 사망함에 따라 위 토지는 지▼▼의 처와 자녀들에게 상속되었다(갑 제11, 12호증, 을 제4호증).

2) 1992. 4. 25. 공동상속인들 사이의 공유물분할절차를 거쳐, 이 사건 토지는 지■■가, **동 77-37은 지▣▣이, **동 77-41은 지가 각각 소유하게 되었다. 그 후 이 사건 토지와 **동 77-36, **동 77-37, **동 77-39, **동 77-41 토지(이하 통틀어 '이 사건 빌라부지'라 한다) 위에는 집합건물인 ◈◈빌라 제104동, 제102동, 제101동, 제103동, 제105동(이하 통틀어 '이 사건 빌라'라 한다)이 각각 건축되었다(갑 제15호증, 을 제1, 19호증).

C. Construction history, etc. of the instant condominium

1) 손는 '◈◈주택' 회사를 통해 위와 같이 지▼▼으로부터 도급받은 이 사건 빌라 건축 공사를 진행하였는데 위 회사의 부도로 공사를 중단하였다가, 1992. 8.경 이후 위 공사를 다시 진행하게 되었다(을 제23호증의2).

2) 손는 1992. 9. 18. 지▼▼의 아들인 지과 사이에, 이 사건 빌라부지 및 **동 77-35, **동 77-38, **동 77-42, **동 77-43 등 총 546평의 토지를 27억 원에 매수하는 내용의 토지매매계약(이하 '이 사건 매매계약'이라 한다)을 체결하였는데, 그 주요 내용은 아래와 같다(을 제27호증).

Article 1

1. Contract deposit: 50 million won (in cases of payment by November 30, 1992, and where the contract deposit is not paid by the said date, the contract of this case shall be automatically destroyed);

2. Part payments: One billion won (payment not later than November 15, 1992);

3. Balance: 1.2 billion won (payment until December 30, 1992).

4.The purchase price shall be substituted by the sale price, etc.

Article 2

land shall be provided with documents of construction administration so that grandchildren may implement Article 1, and the loan-related documents shall be prepared and submitted under the name of the land and the grandchildren.

Article 3

Since grandchildren should begin construction works on the land subject to sale at the same time as the sales contract of this case, all construction permits should be held in the name of the branch, and this is only lent in the name of the branch at the request of the grandchildren, so all the problems arising in relation to the matters concerning the land are responsible to the grandchildren.

Article 4

When the payment of the purchase price is completed and the implementation of all matters is completed, the land and the loss shall be transferred under the agreement between the parties and the land ownership. In this case, the business income tax shall also be borne by the losses.

Article 7

The grandchildren shall decide on the selection of a seller of buildings in units designated by the branch.

Article 8

Because of the establishment of the above sale contract, the land subject to sale, the loans related to the above ground buildings and the sale price should be paid in preference to the sale price, and the loan and the sale price are absolute without the permission of the land owner (land owner).

Article 10

In the event that the construction has been interrupted due to the circumstances in which the construction cannot be continued in the land subject to sale, he/she shall waive all superficies on the land subject to sale, shall accept and repay all the subcontract amount arising from the sale, and shall not be liable for any (subcontract) obligation to be borne by him/her (as soon as any).

Article 14

Damage shall provide the land with a completion certificate within two months from the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract **7-33, **77-33, 77-34, after completion of the two Dongs on land, and ***33-12, one building for the same 33-12 shall be completed and paid by December 10, 1992.

3) 지■■는 1992. 10. 6. 이 사건 토지 위에 지하 1층, 지상 3층, 14세대, 1동 규모 다세대주택 용도의 건물(이 사건 집합건물)을 신축하기로 하는 건축허가신청을 하고, 같은 달 17. 인천광역시 구청장으로부터 건축허가통보를 받았다. 지▣▣, 지도 1992. 11.경 ◈◈빌라 제101동, 제105동에 관해 각각 건축허가를 받았다(갑 제6, 7, 15호증, 을 제1호증).

4) On November 3, 1992, grandchildren entered into a sales service contract with the head of the headquarters and the head of the headquarters from November 4, 1992 to May 31, 1993, under which the sales period was from November 4, 1992 to May 31, 1993, to which the sales service contract was entrusted to the remainder of 180 households, excluding 20 households among the loan 200 households (Evidence No. 28).

5) On November 28, 1992, an advertisement was published that “the unit of the construction business of the same building similar to the corporation” will be sold in the name of “the unit of the same building,” ** the 207 generation complex, the 3 square, the minimum of the actual occupancy amount, 205 million won, in a daily newspaper (Evidence B No. 1 and 7).

6) The loan of this case, including the instant aggregate building, was completed in around 1993 (Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, 3, 15, 15).

7) On March 21, 1993, the land made it possible for the land owner to sell the land of this case to any third party other than the hand, but in the case where the land owner sells the land of this case to a third party, the land owner made an agreement with the effect that the land owner should sell the land of this case under the condition that he reserves the construction work of the land of this case and the right to sell the land to the hand (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement of this case"). On December 4, 1993, the land owner notified the hand on December 4, 1993 that the sales contract of this case should be terminated on the ground that the land was not paid (No. 29 and No. 30).

D. Registration of preservation of ownership of the aggregate building of this case and the amount equivalent to rent, etc.

1) On December 18, 2015, the instant aggregate building had been in existence as an unregistered building without undergoing a completion inspection or approval for use for twenty (20) years from the time of completion, and on December 18, 2015, the registration of ownership preservation was completed for each section of exclusive ownership of the said aggregate building. After the registration of ownership preservation for each section of exclusive ownership was completed, the details of ownership changes are as listed below (Evidence A No. 4)

2) On the other hand, the amount equivalent to the rent for the land of this case for each section of exclusive ownership from the date on which the registration of preservation of ownership has been made for each section of exclusive ownership of the aggregate building of this case is as specified in the following table (as a result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser of this court, the area of each section of exclusive ownership

Section 4

Registration titleholder of ownership preservation;

A title holder of ownership transfer registration;

The date of registration of relocation;

The amount equivalent to the rent (cost)

December 18, 2015 to December 17, 2016

December 18, 2016 to December 17, 2017

December 18, 2017 to December 28, 2018.

101

depth*

-

-

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

102 HS Heading

depth*

Park*

May 26, 2016

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

103 No. 103

depth*

Korea*

August 1, 2016

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

104 No. 104

depth*

UN*

May 26, 2016

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

201

L**

-

-

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

202

L**

-

-

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

203

depth*

UN*

May 26, 2016

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

204

Gangwon*

-

-

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

301

depth*

Kim*

May 26, 2016

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

302

depth*

Korea*

June 10, 2016

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

303

UN*

-

-

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

304 HS Heading

UN*

-

-

3,006,500

3,087,200

721,000

Non-01

Kim*

-

-

2,254,800

2,315,400

541,000

-02

depth*

-

-

2,254,800

2,315,400

541,000

E. Progress of the relevant case

1)* Dong 77-37 land-related cases

지▣▣ 소유이던 **동 77-37 토지를 공매절차로 매수한 김◐◐이 그 지상 ◈◈빌라 제101동의 구분소유자들을 상대로 지료 상당 부당이득반환청구를 한 사건에서, 인천지방법원은 위 구분소유자들의 항변(구분소유자들이 대지사용권을 보유하므로 김◐◐에게 지료를 지급할 의무가 없다)에 대해, 지▣▣이 위 빌라를 원시취득하였다거나 위 빌라의 분양주체의 지위에 있었다고 보기 어렵다(따라서 구분소유자들이 지▣▣로부터 대지사용권을 승계하였다고 보기 어렵다)는 이유로 위 항변을 배척하고, 김◐◐의 청구를 인용하였고(인천지방법원), 이에 대해 구분소유자들이 항소하였으나, 항소기각 판결이 선고되어(인천지방법원), 위 판결은 그 무렵 확정되었다.

2)* Dong 77-41 land-related cases

A) In the case where the sectional owners filed a claim for the cancellation of the above seizure registration and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage against the Republic of Korea, the mortgagee-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage

B) The appellate court of the instant case revoked the part partially dismissed at the first instance on the ground that the sectional ownership was constituted around April 1993 (the seizure registration established before April 1993 and the request for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage) and rendered a ruling of acceptance (the cancellation of the registration established during the above period).

C) Meanwhile, the above appellate court rejected the appeal as follows: (a) in relation to the defense of the Republic of Korea that the land owner was merely a nominal owner and did not acquire the above aggregate building; (b) the land ownership of the land was not the right to use the land; and (c) the above seizure registration, etc. was not subject to the legal doctrine of prohibition of separate disposal of the right to use the land; and (b) in the case where, against the sectional owners who purchased the above section of exclusive ownership from the land owner, he sought implementation of the procedure of registration of transfer of ownership against the land owner who purchased the above section of exclusive ownership from the land owner, on the ground that the above double sale of the land was null and void, he cannot be deemed as the owner of the above loan; (c) on the ground that the above lawsuit was rejected on the ground that he did not delegate the right to use the above loan to the land owner, and (d) the court did not have the obligation to grant the above right to use the land to the land owner as the right to use the land to use the land to the above 105th parties.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 11, 12, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, 19, 27, 29, 30, Eul evidence Nos. 23-2, results of appraisal entrustment to appraiser of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Legal doctrine

1) Under the same Act, which is prohibited from a separate disposition pursuant to Article 20 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”), the right to use a site is a right that a sectional owner has against a building site for the purpose of owning a section for exclusive use (see Article 2 Subparag. 6 of the same Act). Thus, a person who is not a sectional owner has prior to the construction of an aggregate building with respect to a parcel of land which is a site irrespective of a section for exclusive use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da6017, May 27, 2010).

2) Generally, a person who constructed a building in his/her own effort and materials acquires the ownership of the building in original condition. However, even if the contractor completes the building in his/her own effort and materials, if it appears that the contractor and the contractor agree to vest in the order of the work, the ownership of the building completed, such as obtaining a construction permit under the name of the contractor and obtaining a registration of preservation of ownership, shall be vested in the orderer, the ownership of the building shall be vested in the orderer. However, if the debtor in his/her own expense and effort for securing the obligation under the name of the obligee, if the name of the building permit for the building newly constructed by the obligor in his/her own expense and effort was made in the name of the obligee, the agreement to provide the building to be completed as a security, and the ownership of the completed building is transferred to the obligee within the scope of the object of security by completing the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da8601, May 30,

B. Determination

1) 앞서 살펴본 사실(특히, 이 사건 매매계약의 내용), 을 제23호증의 기재에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사실 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 손는 당초 지▼▼으로부터 이 사건 빌라부지를 매수하고 그 위에 이 사건 빌라 및 관련 상가를 건축하려고 하였으나, 지▼▼이 사망한 후 그 상속인들을 대리한 지과 사이에 이 사건 매매계약을 체결하면서, 손가 이 사건 토지를 포함한 이 사건 빌라부지를 매수하여 자신의 책임과 비용(하도급인들에게 이 사건 빌라의 전유부분 중 일부를 대물변제로 제공하는 방법 등)으로 이 사건 빌라를 완성시키고 위 빌라의 분양 등에 관한 사업소득세 등도 손가 부담하되, 편의상 건축허가 명의는 지■■ 등 이 사건 빌라부지 소유자들의 명의로 해두고 다만 손가 이 사건 빌라의 분양금 등으로 이 사건 빌라 부지의 매매대금을 모두 지급하는 경우 위 건축허가 명의를 손가 이전받기로 한 점, ② 지이 이 사건 빌라부지를 제3자에게 다시 매도하더라도, 손가 이 사건빌라의 공사 및 분양 업무를 수행한다는 점은 이 사건 합의서가 작성되던 1993. 3. 21.경에도 재차 확인된 점, ③ 이 사건 합의서가 작성되던 무렵에는 손가 이 사건 집합건물을 완성한 사실이 인정된다.

가) ◈◈빌라 제105동 건축허가 명의자인 지는 위 빌라 공사에 특별히 관여하지 아니하였고 위 공사를 수행한 손에게 공사대금을 지급하지도 아니한 사실{을 제23호증의1, 2-3, 5, 7쪽, 지▼▼이 손에게 상가 공사대금을 지급하였다는 사실(갑 제11호증)은 이 사건 빌라의 공사대금이 지급되지 아니하였다는 사정과는 무관하다. 빌라 공사대금과 달리 상가 공사대금은 지급되었기 때문에 손는 이 사건 빌라와 달리 그 관련 상가의 소유권을 지 등에게 이전해 줄 의무를 부담한다(이 사건 매매계약 제4, 14조)}

B) The fact that the investigation agency, at its discretion, states that grandchildren were fully responsible for the construction cost of the instant loan and that they were to pay the purchase price of the instant loan site with the sale price of the said loan (No. 23-1, No. 4)

C) The fact that he did not pay money to the subcontractor at the time of the construction of the instant loan by the investigative agency and that he stated that he provided part of the portion of the instant loan exclusively for exclusive use (No. 23-2, 3 pages)

D) In the investigation agency that was delegated to sell the loan of this case by hand, unlike the name of the building permit for the loan of this case, the actual owner of the loan of this case was his hand, and the hand carried out the above construction on the condition that he would give the land value to the land seller after the loan of this case. The river was a substitute in accordance with the order of hand, and the part of the part of the part of the loan of this case was sold to the land seller. The owner of the loan of this case, including the initial land, stated that he was involved in the sale of the loan of this case when the company that operated the loan of this case did not participate in the sale of the loan of this case due to the failure to pay the damages, and was involved in the sale of the loan of this case (No. 23-3).

마) 지▼▼의 사위인 박은, 지▼▼의 처 임이 손에게 이 사건 빌라공사를 하게 하고 그 분양대금으로 토지대금 및 분양사업에 따른 이익금을 받기로 함에 따라, 지과 박이 참석한 자리에서 이 사건 매매계약이 체결되었으며, 공사에 필요한 자금은 손가 책임지기로 하였다는 취지의 진술서를 작성한 사실(을 제23호증의4)

2) 위와 같은 사실 및 사정을 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 보면, 손가 이 사건 집합건물을 완성함으로써 그 소유권을 원시취득하였고[원고들은 손가 계약금 지급의무 또는 기타 의무를 위반하여 이 사건 매매계약이 자동해제되었거나 그 효력이 상실되었으므로 손가 이 사건 집합건물을 원시취득할 수 없다고 주장하나, 토지에 관한 매매계약인 이 사건 매매계약의 효력 유무에도 불구하고, 앞서 본 바와 같이 손가 이 사건 집합건물을 자기의 계산으로 완성한 이상 그 건물의 소유권을 원시취득하는 데 방해가 되지 아니하므로 {즉, 위 매매계약의 내용으로부터, 손가 실질적인 건축주로서 자신의 책임으로 이 사건 집합건물을 건축하기로 한다는 당사자들의 의사를 확인할 수 있고, 그 후 위 계약이 무효로 되더라도 그 경우 손가 자신의 공사권한을 지■■ 등에게 넘긴다는 별도의 합의가 있다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 공사를 수행하지도 아니한 지■■ 등 건축허가 명의자들이 실질적인 건축주가 된다거나 건물을 원시취득하게 되는 것은 아니다(지 등이 이 사건 빌라부지를 제3자에게 다시 매도하고 그로 인해 이 사건 매매계약의 효력이 상실되더라도 손가 공사권한을 계속 보유하도록 한다는 취지의 이 사건 합의서 참조)}, 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다], 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 집합건물의 각 전유부분에 관하여 지■■ 명의의 소유권보존등기가 경료된 사실도 없으므로 지■■는 담보목적의 범위 내에서도 이 사건집합건물의 소유권을 취득하지 못하였다고 할 것인바, 이 사건 집합건물의 구분소유자가 아닌 지■■가 그 집합건물의 건축 이전부터 전유부분의 소유와 무관하게 집합건물의 대지로 된 이 사건 토지에 대하여 가지고 있던 소유권은 집합건물법 제20조에 규정된 분리처분금지의 제한을 받는다고 할 수 없으므로, 공매절차를 통한 피고의 이 사건 토지 소유권의 취득은 유효하다.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant land ownership is null and void in violation of Article 20 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and its ownership (right to use site) to the Plaintiffs, who are sectional owners of the instant aggregate building.

The plaintiffs' claims of this case based on the premise that they belonged to this case are without merit.

4) 원고들은 **동 77-41 토지 관련 사건에서의 판결의 취지를 들어 이 사건 집합건물도 손가 원시취득한 것이 아니라 건축허가 명의자인 지■■가 원시취득한 것이라고 주장하나, 위 관련 사건에서는 그 구분소유자들이 대지 지분까지 매수하여 등기를 마쳤고, 위 사건에서 지가 ◈◈빌라 제105동을 원시취득하였다고 판단된 주된 근거는, 지가 위 건물의 건축허가 명의자로서 실질적인 건축주에 해당하고 위 빌라의 구분소유자들에게 그 전유부분을 매도하였다는 점 및 손가 ◈◈빌라 제105동을 원시취득하였거나 지로부터 위 건물의 분양권한을 위임받았다고 볼 수 없다는 다른 사건에서의 판단(인천지방법원, 같은 법원)인데, 이는 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 손가 이 사건 빌라부지를 매수하면서 이 사건 빌라의 공사를 책임지고 수행하기로 한 사정에 관한 증거(이 사건 매매계약서 등)가 적절히 제출되지 않은 상태에서 내려진 판단으로 보이는바, 위 관련 사건의 결과가 이 법원의 판단과 모순된다고 볼 수 없다.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. Whether to return unjust enrichment

According to the facts and circumstances seen earlier, the Plaintiffs shall return to the Defendant, the owner of the instant aggregate building, as they possess and use the land owned by others without any legal grounds, and gain profits therefrom, by partitioned ownership of the instant aggregate building.

B. The portion of unjust enrichment from possession until February 28, 2018

1) The amount equivalent to the rent for the instant land by section for exclusive use of the instant condominium, as seen earlier, is converted to the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant land by section for exclusive use of the said aggregate building. In calculating the gain that the Plaintiffs occupied the instant land as the relevant site by acquiring ownership of the said section for exclusive use

2) Accordingly, (1)** 15,374,185 won (=6,814,70 won + 1,314,67 won + 1,314,316 won + 1,316 won + 1,314,316 won + 1,437,534 won + 2.2 Plaintiff Park 5,496, 37,782, as the Defendant seeks to seek payment of damages for delay from 10,325, 67, 305, 67, 105, 67, 105, 67, 67, 405, 67, 105, 67, 605, 106, 67, 305, 67, 106, 684, 67, 196, 106, 106, 67, 1065, 364, 1665, *

C. The portion of unjust enrichment from March 1, 2018

"1) According to the above, the current status of divided ownership over each part of the aggregate building of this case is as stated in the separate sheet 2 "Plaintiffs" and "pre-owned portion". The amount equivalent to the rent for the land of this case from December 18, 2017 to February 28, 2018, which is 721,000 won, 541,00 won, and the rent for the land of this case from March 1, 2018 * 200,416 won (721,000 won) * from March 1, 2018 * the rent for the land of this case * 20,416 won (721,00 won ± from December 18, 2017 ± 206, 306, 2015 ±616, 206, 306, 206, 205, 2015) ±61.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiffs' main lawsuit and the defendant's remaining counterclaim claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.