1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion of the plaintiffs A and the construction of space between the plaintiff A and the non-party corporation is the sectional owners of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C.

Since the Defendant arbitrarily leased the section for common use of the building [the common use area of the building (the space created by breaking up the open space)] in the course of performing the management of the building above, and made unjust enrichment of KRW 222,303,304 in total in 2012, and KRW 221,059,689 in total from 2014 to May 31, 2016 when the Defendant completed the management act, the said money shall be returned to the sectional owners of the building above in proportion to their shares.

Therefore, Plaintiff A, as a sectional owner of the above building after 2014, sought a return of the unjust enrichment equivalent to 36,138,048 won (221,059,689 x 1332.78 square meters/82.78 square meters/8152.735 square meters), and Plaintiff B, as a creditor of space construction, who is a co-owner of the above building, in subrogation of space construction, as a co-owner of space construction, in 2012 and 2013, of the above unjust enrichment of 105,486,660 won (22,303,304 x 386.61 square meters/82.735 square meters), which is one of the co-ownership owners of the above building.

2. Determination

A. According to each description of evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 13 through 15 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant leased the finishing party to a building for the use of a store outside the jurisdiction, such as an overwork, etc., the fact that the rooftop has been leased to a communications company for the purpose of installing a heavy meter, and the fact that he has leased E for the purpose

B. The common areas E and E are not subject to the original use or lease for the same purpose (in particular, it is an illegal building in case of E, see the evidence No. 16) of the Plaintiffs, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, even though the Defendant, as argued by the Plaintiffs, obtained a profit by leasing it to others, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs suffered a loss.

Even if the above section for common use leased by the defendant is a space that can be used and profited by means of lease in its structure and nature, the defendant manages the shop located in the section for common use.