1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. The following facts of recognition may be recognized, and shall not be anti-proof, by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number) and the entire purport of the pleadings:

The details of co-ownership shares of multi-family housing on the second floor of the Jungdong-gu Seoul Central Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing”) are as follows:

Preservation of Ownership (No. 12. 201) (No. 2013. 4. 16. 201) prior to co-ownership (No. 201. 4. 4. 201/20) Defendant C4/20, Defendant D4/20, Defendant D 4/20 4/20 4/20 4/20, 20 G 4/20 - 20 - H 1/20 1/20 - 1/20 - I/20 -

B. The Plaintiff leased and resided in the entirety of the second floor (45.93 square meters) of the instant housing to the following contents from F, one of the co-owned share holders (However, each lease agreement includes a lessor’s “non-F,” as a lessor).

(1) On March 10, 2012, the date of the first contract, KRW 100 million, KRW 120 million, the date of occupancy, April 27, 2012, the date of resident registration, June 28, 2012, the date of the second contract, June 25, 2013, the date of the second contract, KRW 110 million, the fixed date (amount of KRW 10 million), and the fixed date (amount of KRW 10 million), April 25, 2014, the date of the third contract, KRW 24 months, the lease deposit (amount of KRW 120 million, April 27, 2018), and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 won, by the date of the third contract (amount of KRW 100,000,000,00).

On April 27, 2018, the expiration date of the lease of this case expired, but the Plaintiff was not able to receive the above lease deposit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against the Defendants and F, a co-owner of the instant housing, seeking payment of KRW 120 million (this Court Decision 2018Hu850), and the payment order against F was finalized, and the Defendants raised an objection against the payment order.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, even if there was no prior consultation between the Defendants and F, who are co-owner of the right to share in the method of management, such as the lease of the instant housing, as argued by the Defendants.