1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the appointed party) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 2008, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale due to voluntary auction on September 19, 2007, respectively, 1/2 shares as to H 618 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant, Appointors D, and F completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding each sectionally owned building among the aggregate buildings (total eight households) constructed on the ground of the instant land as listed below.

Defendant 402, May 23, 2012, Defendant 13, 2013, as of November 13, 2013, 101, the date of the registration of ownership transfer of a registered titleholder of a unit of a building owned by sectional ownership (101).

The details of the change in rights, such as the instant land and the ownership of the said aggregate building, are as follows:

In this case, on February 28, 1989, the registration of ownership transfer on November 21, 1996 (the sale on August 12, 1996) the owner of the right to collateral security (Ssung support K), J on November 25, 1996, for new construction on March 11, 1997, L (B prior to the opening of the house): the registration of ownership transfer on July 14, 200 (the voluntary sale on July 12, 200), M No. 3, the registration of ownership transfer on October 7, 200 (the sale on September 7, 200), No. 5 (No. 1000), and the purport of the registration of ownership transfer on November 28, 200 (the sale on September 7, 200), and the purport of the registration of ownership transfer on July 14, 2005 (the purchase on September 19, 2002).

2. Determination on the main claim

A. As long as the Defendant, the appointed party D, and F did not prove that they had the right to use the site for each sectional ownership of the above sectional ownership as to the land of this case, among the aggregate buildings constructed on the land of this case on the ground of unjust enrichment, the obligation to return unjust enrichment did not prove that they had the right to use the land of this case.