1. The defendant,

A. It delivers to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C the buildings listed in attached Form 2;

B. June 1, 2017

1. The description of the claim is as shown in the [Attachment 3] of the Claim and the “the cause of the modified claim.”

(Attached Form 2). 2. Decision by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Some dismissed parts of the co-owners can use and make profits from all the co-owned property at the ratio of shares (Article 263 of the Civil Act). Co-owners of land can exercise their right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent only to the extent of the ratio corresponding to their shares, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da36083, Nov. 10, 2005). Thus, the claim for the return of unjust enrichment arising from the unauthorized possession of the jointly owned property is a divided claim of co-owners based on

In the instant case, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) sought the payment of monthly rent without distinction according to the ratio of shares with the selector C. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the claim for return of unjust enrichment by the Plaintiff and the selector is indivisible, and thus, the Plaintiff’s payment of the amount divided (10,230,000 won per month, and the amount calculated at the rate of 6,820,000 won per month, and 6,000 won per month by the selector C) is ordered, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.