(a) deliver buildings listed in the annexed real estate list;

B. From October 7, 2014, the above A

(b).

A. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the building listed in the attached Table’s real estate list (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. From December 23, 2013, the Defendant used the instant building in possession.

C. The monthly user fee, which is equivalent to the rent as of the instant building, is KRW 546,389.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2, 3-1, and 3-2 of evidence Nos. 2-1, and 3-2 of this Court, the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser C of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, without any legal ground, has infringed the Plaintiff’s ownership by gaining profits from occupying, using, and making profits from the instant building and gain unjust enrichment equivalent to monthly rent. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 546,389 per month from October 7, 2014 to the completion date of delivery, which is the following day after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

B. As to this, the defendant started to occupy the building of this case at the request of the former owner D of the building of this case and the joint development project owner of the building of this case, and the plaintiff purchased the building of this case under the condition that he approves and permits the occupation of the building of this case through the defendant with a well-known knowledge of these circumstances. Thus, the plaintiff consented to the possession of the building of this case.

Therefore, we examine whether the plaintiff consented to the defendant's possession by purchasing the building of this case under the condition that the plaintiff approves or permits the defendant to occupy the building of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable. It is so decided as per Disposition.