1. The Defendants jointly did not indicate the overlapping relationship with the Defendants, but did not constitute a separate obligation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs and Defendant E are children of net G and H, and Defendant F is the husband of Defendant E.

B. The net G owned a building of 175.2 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”) in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, and the network G died on November 28, 2002, and the Plaintiffs, Defendant E, and H succeeded the said site and building to each statutory inheritance share (the Plaintiff and Defendant E, 2/13, H3/13), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 4, 2017 due to each share inheritance.

C. The Defendants jointly possess the first floor of the instant building.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap's 1 and Eul's 3, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are co-owners of the first floor of the instant building, and upon the co-ownership right holder seeking the above part as a preservation act of the common property, the Defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the first floor of the instant building to the Plaintiffs.

B. On January 202, 2002, Defendant E concluded a contract for disposal (donation) or loan of use of the right to use the first floor of the instant building. Thus, Defendant E had the right to use the first floor of the instant building, and the Plaintiffs did not inherit the right to use the first floor of the instant building. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserted that the right to request extradition against Defendant E constituted a claim for inheritance recovery and the right to request extradition expires after the lapse of ten years from November 2002, where the deceased Party G’s death.

However, the right to use is not only the right incidental to the ownership of the building, but also the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone is insufficient to recognize that the network G entered into a loan agreement on the part of the first floor of the building of this case with Defendant E around January 2002, and there is no other evidence to recognize it (the defendants are the J University No. 2 (N University).