All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant and D are married couple who completed the marriage report on October 20, 2010, and Plaintiff A is an external third village of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B is an external third village of Plaintiff A with children of Plaintiff A.

B. On December 20, 2017, D filed a claim for divorce, etc. against the Defendant, and on January 17, 2019, D and D were sentenced to a judgment of divorce ( Daejeon Family Court Decision 2017Nu57676). A decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive on May 15, 2019, upon appeal by the Defendant, to withdraw an appeal.

Daejeon Family Court (2019Reu10303) c.

D shall purchase the instant building on November 22, 2013 during the marriage period and complete the registration of ownership transfer on January 16, 2014.

Defendant and D moved to the instant building on or around February 2014, and the Defendant continued to reside in the instant building even after they divorced from D.

D On October 30, 2018, during a divorce lawsuit with the Defendant, concluded a sales contract for selling the instant building to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 7, 2018 with respect to the instant building as co-ownership of each 1/2 shares.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), evidence Nos. 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiffs, co-owners of the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment as to the defendant's joint property assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant building has the right to use and benefit from the instant building until the division of property becomes final and conclusive with the joint property of the married couple.

B. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 12-1 through 7, the defendant filed a claim against D and the plaintiffs for division of property and revocation of fraudulent act on February 27, 2019, and on October 21, 2020, Eul paid KRW 64 million to the defendant as division of property and concluded between D and the plaintiffs.