1. Defendant D, E, and F:

A. Each of KRW 11,788,750, Plaintiff C, and Party A, respectively, and each of them shall be KRW 5,894,375, respectively, to Plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

A. The difference between the deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the Plaintiffs is between I (Death on August 8, 1998) and J (Death on May 3, 2017).

On the other hand, the deceased had Defendant D, E, and F as his child between Defendant G and his wife, and died on December 13, 2016 and succeeded to the property of the Defendants.

B. The plaintiffs and the deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the building on November 1, 2005, the change of use, partial destruction, and large-scale repair of the building listed in paragraph (2) of the list of real estate [Attachment] and the above ground (hereinafter "the building of this case"), and the extension on May 18, 2006, and the current status of the building. The building of this case is "the building of this case" without distinguishing the above before and after the above alteration. The building of this case is "the building of this case" as to the sale on August 29, 198, and the land of this case and the building of this case are combined with each of the real estate of this case. The plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the share of 2/10 shares, the plaintiff, and the deceased, and the deceased, as to the share of 6/10 shares.

C. On July 14, 2017, Defendant D, E, and F: (a) registered inheritance inheritance inheritance of 2/10 of the deceased’s share in the instant land by agreement and division. D.

From April 1, 1976, the Deceased operated a restaurant with the trade name “P” in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L, M, N,O, etc. adjacent to the instant land, and Defendant D, E, and F are operating the said restaurant after the deceased died.

E. Each real estate of this case is used as a parking lot and retail store of a P cafeteria after completing the registration of ownership transfer between the deceased and the plaintiffs.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap's evidence 1 to 3, and all pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased and the defendant D, E, and F used each of the instant real estate without any title as a P parking lot, etc., thereby gaining unjust enrichment from the amount equivalent to the rent for the plaintiffs' shares among the instant real estate.