1. The defendant shall deliver buildings listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 560,547 and October 2017 to Plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2005, the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) had completed the registration of ownership preservation in the future in the deceased’s father D, the father of the Plaintiffs, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the deceased’s mother, the mother of the Plaintiffs due to the inheritance due to the consultation division.

B. The deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) operated the instant building under the name of “F” and died on November 8, 2014. The deceased’s heir is the Plaintiffs, G, and H4.

C. After the death of the deceased, the Defendant is in charge of the Council of New Dos in the instant building, and operates the Section under the name of “I”.

The Defendant received all shares from G on April 28, 2017, while the instant lawsuit is pending, and received all shares from H on May 17, 2017.

E. The plaintiff A currently occupies and uses two partitionss and 1/2 of warehouses among the buildings of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 7 and video (including paper numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1 is the co-owner of the building of this case, and they seek against the defendant unjust enrichment return or damages equivalent to the delivery and rent of the building of this case as part of the act of preserving the jointly-owned property. 2) The defendant's assertion 1) since the defendant received shares from G and H, and owned the 1/2 shares of the building of this case, the plaintiff cannot seek delivery of the building of this case against the defendant.

② Since Plaintiff A occupied and used a part of the instant building from before 2016 to now, Plaintiff A cannot claim rent according to its equity ratio.

③ Plaintiff B may only claim the amount of money calculated in proportion to 1/4 shares, which are one’s own shares. However, the Defendant spent approximately KRW 70 million for the maintenance and management of the instant building.