1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally owned by D. However, on May 31, 2006, the Defendant, F, G, H, and M jointly inherited (hereinafter “the co-inheritors, including the Defendant, etc.”) 27/117(E), 18/17(E), 6/117(E), 6/17(J), 4/117(H), 4/17(K, L, and M(M), each of the co-inheritors, who died earlier than D, due to the death of D.

B. Of the instant real estate, F’s share 18/117 was commenced for a compulsory auction by official auction with Seoul Western District Court N, and the Plaintiff purchased the said share at the above auction procedure on May 14, 2014 and completed a share transfer registration on May 21, 2014.

C. After that, after the death of E on July 30, 2015, 27/117 of E’s equity of the instant real estate was re- inherited to the co-inheritors, including the Defendant.

As to the instant real estate, an auction procedure for partition of co-owned property (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) has been conducted with the Seoul Western District CourtO, and P purchased the said real estate on February 28, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 9, 2017.

E. On April 11, 2017, the Seoul Western District Court: (a) preferentially distributed the dividend amount of the instant auction procedure KRW 845,684,274 to Q, R, S, T, and U, a lessee of the instant building among the instant real estate, KRW 55 million; (b) paid the respective deposit amount of KRW 75 million; (c) KRW 55 million; (d) KRW 35 million; and (e) drafted a distribution schedule to distribute the remainder to the co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in accordance with their respective equity ratios;

The amount of dividends to the plaintiff was KRW 93,182,196.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion should have received dividends of KRW 130,105,273 (won 845,684,274 x 18/117) equivalent to the plaintiff's share out of KRW 845,684,274 of the dividend amount in the auction procedure of this case, but did not receive dividends of only KRW 93,182,196. Thus, the defendant is unjust enrichment for the plaintiff.