1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,854,167 and the interest rate thereon from January 26, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) 1/6 of H’s 1/6 shares related to G 402 in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Even after the Plaintiff acquired the 1/6 share of the instant building, H still occupied and used the entire instant building, which was based on the agreement on the management of the Defendants, i.e., co-owners of the instant building except the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, the instant building was sold to a third party at an auction for partition of co-owned property on March 3, 2017, and even around that time H occupied and used the entire building in accordance with the Defendants’ co-owned property management agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether obligation to return unjust enrichment is recognized;

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are co-owners of a majority of shares (5/6) in the building of this case, who are the minority shareholders, and have H occupy and use the whole building of this case, and thereby jointly obtain unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent corresponding to 1/6, which is the plaintiff's share. Thus, the defendants are jointly obligated to return it to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they did not gain profit from their free lending of the instant building to H, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment is unjustifiable. However, as long as the Defendants occupied and used the instant building exclusively in excess of their share ratio, i.e., the entire building of this case, inasmuch as they do not own the instant building directly, but are indirectly occupying the entire building of this case through H with the exclusion of the Plaintiff, the form of possession is not important. As long as the Defendants are doing so, there is no benefit to the Defendants.

(2) the Corporation shall not be allowed to do so.