1. The defendant has a 131/175 share to the plaintiff A and 44/175 share to the plaintiff B,

(a) 18,392,00 Won;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs respectively own the share of 131/175 of the Plaintiff A and the share of 44/175 of the Plaintiff B with the share of 1,157 square meters in Cheong-do, Cheong-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. The Defendant owned (B) part of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 22, 11, 12, 13, and 1 on the ground of 620 square meters in order to connect each point among the above D land owned by the Plaintiffs, and occupied and used the above part (b) as the land for the above house, etc.

(b) The above (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) portion C.

The amount equivalent to the rent for the instant land from December 18, 2005 to December 17, 2015 is 18,392,000 won in total, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent for December 18, 2015 is 168,180 won in total, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent for December as of January 1, 2016 is 184,450 won in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of appraiser E's appraisal of rent, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination, the defendant who occupies and uses the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs without any title shall return unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, pay to the plaintiff A the amount of 131 percent equity, the amount of 44 percent equity interest to the plaintiff B from December 18, 2005 to December 17, 2015, the total of 18,392,000 equity interest from December 18, 2015, and the amount of 15 percent equity interest calculated at the rate of 15 percent per annum from December 18, 2015 to December 31, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to December 18, 2015, the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff B the amount of 160 percent equity interest, the amount of 18,000 equity interest from the date following the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to December 18, 2015 to December 315.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.