1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Grounds for the court's explanation on this part of the removal, confinement, withdrawal, request for transfer of ownership and the transfer of ownership are as follows: the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance No.2

(a).

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The lease of this case’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment terminated on October 6, 2015, and according to the fact of recognition under Paragraph 1, the Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from use of each land of this case by occupying and using each land of this case even after the termination of the lease of this case. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants have suffered profit from use of each land of this case and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiffs.

The amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate in the case of health class or ordinary cases shall be equivalent to the rent, unless there are special circumstances. However, in the case of an agreement difference between the rent and the actual rent, the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned after the termination of the lease contract is the amount equivalent to the actual rent at the time of unjust enrichment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da60535 Decided June 1, 2001). According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1), it is reasonable to deem that there is a substantial difference between the rent for each of the instant lands and the actual rent for each of the instant lands. Therefore, the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendants is the amount equivalent to the actual rent. Meanwhile, Plaintiff A received KRW 6,240,000 from Defendant C.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C is calculated by the proportion of KRW 1,720,00 per month from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016.