1. The plaintiff

A. The remaining Defendants except for Defendant Heungjin Construction Co., Ltd. are indicated in the “total amount” column of the attached Table.

1. Basic facts

A. The following land is the site of the multi-unit building DBD (attached Form 1) and its ownership relationship is as follows:

On June 9, 2005, the Plaintiff’s ownership was acquired (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) on June 9, 2005, Yangnam-si, Yangsan-do, Yangsan-do, Yangyang-do, Seoul-do, Seoul-do (hereinafter “Seoul-do-si”) and on November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff’s ownership was acquired (hereinafter “H site”) on June 16, 201, the Plaintiff’s ownership was acquired on June 16, 201, G-do-si, Yangsan-do-si, Yangsan-do-si, Yangsan-do-do-si, Yangsan-do-do (hereinafter “Seoul-do-si”) on the acquisition of H ownership on June 16, 2010.

B. The defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants by the sequence listed in the annexed list of "the defendant") are owned by the persons who were or were the former sectional owners of Dogra, as listed in the annexed list.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against JJ (hereinafter “J”) seeking the payment of unjust enrichment on the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Gadan59604, 2007) and sentenced that “J shall pay to the Plaintiff money at the rate of KRW 1,235,00 per month from May 12, 2007 and from May 12, 2007 to the date of the loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership or the date of the loss of the J’s possession.”

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition that the claim for return of unjust enrichment was established, since the Defendants, the owner of the land owned by the Plaintiff, possess or occupy the land owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent according to their respective shares in exclusive ownership.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the amount of unjust enrichment was as follows: (a) in the case filed by H against the defendant, etc. (Dasan District Court 2014Gadan168588), H entrusted the appraiser K with the appraisal of rent; and (b) according to this, the monthly rent per unit area of H site can be acknowledged as follows.