1. The defendant (Counterclaim defendant) 1,327,272 won respectively to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) A and B, and the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) C and D, respectively 4,626.

1. The premise fact-finding H owned and leased the 56.54 square meters of a single-story house (hereinafter “instant cosmetics store”) as KRW 16,00,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 1,400,000,000, in consideration of the present utilization status, based on the ownership of the real estate listed in the attached list, and determined and leased the 30,000,000,000,000 of a lease deposit for a single-story residential facility (hereinafter “instant stores”).

H On March 8, 2016, following the death of August 11, 2015, the Defendant, a spouse, completed the registration of ownership transfer at the ratio of 3/11 shares, and the Plaintiff A, E, B, and F, a child, at the ratio of 2/11 shares, on the grounds of inheritance.

On the other hand, on March 8, 2016, Plaintiff C, a child, and Plaintiff B, a child, donated the entire shares of each of the above stores to Plaintiff D.

The above lease agreement on the instant refined Store was terminated on July 20, 2016, and thereafter, on January 22, 2018, Plaintiff E, F, C, D, and Defendant leased the instant Periodical Store with the status of joint lessors as KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent, KRW 1,400,000, and the lease period from March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' main claim

A. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, each of the instant stores is jointly owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant gain profit from the entire shares of each of the instant stores (Article 263 and Article 266 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs and the instant stores were able to gain profit and that the Defendant agreed on the division of inherited property with the content that the cosmetic stores of this case are to gain profit by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant independently.

The main issue is that the defendant submitted to prove that there was an agreement on the division of inherited property.