1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered under the following order.

A. On January 8, 1988, upon approval of the housing construction project plan, the above apartment was newly built, and on application of the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank, Busan District Court Decision 87Da6410 decided on January 8, 198, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed with respect to each section of exclusive ownership of the apartment of this case on January 8, 198.

The shares in the forest land of Korea Housing in this case in November 24, 1992 are 410,857/2,278,600 until now after the common property was divided.

C. The Defendants and the co-defendant E of the first instance trial (hereinafter “E”) share each section of exclusive ownership as indicated below on each date indicated below in the “acquisition date of ownership” as indicated below. The Defendants and the co-defendant E of the first instance trial (hereinafter “E”) share each section of exclusive ownership after being sold or transferred from one house from the buyer.

Defendant A, the number of ownership acquisition days, Defendant A, the number of Defendants B, the same No. 105, Sep. 24, 1998, Defendant B, June 25, 2009, Defendant C, June 2, 2007, June 25, 2002, Defendant C, June 2, 2001, Defendant DF-305, September 3, 14, 1993, April 24, 1993, * Defendant F- and E owned 1/2 shares [based] without any dispute, the evidence No. 1, 2-1 through 5, 4-1, 2-1, 4-1, 2-3, 7-1 through 6-3, 20-1, 20-6-1 through 6-1, 20-2, the purport of the survey conducted by the entire Busan Metropolitan City Mayor's Vice Governor of the first instance trial of Busan Metropolitan City, the result of the survey conducted by the Busan Metropolitan City.

2. Return of unjust enrichment:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants owned each part of the instant apartment on the instant site and occupied and used exclusively the area corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share among the instant apartment site. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants shall return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share out of the instant site as unjust enrichment with respect to the area corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share.