1. The Plaintiff:

A. As from September 24, 2014, Defendant C’s KRW 318,127 and its related amount:

B. Defendant D shall be KRW 163,800 and this shall apply.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 16, 1974, K received the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on April 15, 1974 with respect to the land of Jung-gu L 330.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The details of the transfer of shares thereafter are as shown in the separate sheet 2.

B. On March 16, 1979, the instant land was newly built of 162.74 square meters on the 3-story apartment and shelter 162.74 square meters on the 3-story apartment and shelter 14.46 square meters on the 2-story, 3-story 105.72 square meters on the 3-story, and 63.90 square meters on the 63.90 square meters on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “MMM”).

C. On July 4, 1986, with respect to the portion remaining except N Shares (10/100 shares, hereinafter “instant shares”) out of the instant site, the registration of site ownership was completed on July 4, 1986 to sectional owners.

The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each part of the Defendants’ respective buildings entered in their respective addresses in the Minmanion on the date stated in the list 1. The ownership ratio is as stated in the “ratio of Site Rights” in the same list.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. As to the period from June 17, 2013 to April 15, 2015, the method of management of jointly owned property to determine that a person who has a majority share in the co-owned land should exclusively use and benefit from a specific part of the co-owned land is lawful. However, even if the specific part is within the scope equivalent to his/her share ratio, the method of management of the jointly owned property is lawful. However, even if the specific part is within the scope equivalent to his/her share ratio, a co-owner, including a majority share holder, who suffers damage due to the failure to use and benefit from all other co-owners, shall be deemed to have made unjust enrichment corresponding to his/her share.

This is because all co-owners can enjoy profits from all co-owners in proportion to their shares.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 14, 201