1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 14,721,30 won and KRW 5,004,00 among them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff received the above co-ownership share of 3/13 of D’s 3/13 shares among the 2,834 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Manyang-si, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on November 21, 2012 after receiving the successful bid for the said co-ownership during the voluntary auction procedure for Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City E voluntarily, and completed the sale price in full.

B. The Defendant is a co-owner of 3/26 shares among the instant land, and the Plaintiff occupied the entire land of this case before acquiring the said co-ownership, and used it as farmland, warehouse, etc. for use and profit.

C. As co-owners of the instant land, not only the original Defendant but also F (2/13), G (2/13), H (2/13), H (2/13), and I (5/26). There is no agreement among co-owners on the method of using and making profits from the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) A co-owner of land may use and benefit from the entire land according to the share ratio of each co-owner. However, inasmuch as a majority of the share share of each co-owner with respect to the specific method of use and benefit, it cannot be exclusively occupied and used. Thus, if a part of the co-owner exclusively occupies and uses the entire land, it shall be deemed that unjust enrichment corresponding to his/her share is made to a person who has the share of other co-owners but does not use and benefit from the entire land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da17803, Oct. 11, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above facts acknowledged as seen above, the defendant occupies and uses the entire land of this case exclusively in excess of his/her share, and thus, the plaintiff who did not use and benefit from the entire land, and the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the Plaintiff's share of co-owner's share to a nearby spouse at the end of December 2012.