(a) the buildings listed in Appendix 1;

The fact that the Plaintiff occupied and resided in the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) owned by the Defendant C was completed on October 28, 2013 due to sale and purchase on October 25, 2013; the Plaintiff resided in the loan of this case from around 2003 to the present date; the fact that the Defendant C, D, and E are the children of the Defendant B may be recognized by either the dispute between the parties or the evidence No. 1, and the evidence No. 2 through No. 4.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) from January 2004, the Defendants leased and resided in the instant apartment from the Plaintiff as KRW 1,000,000 per month from January 21, 201, and did not pay the rent from November 21, 201. As such, the Plaintiff terminated the lease on the grounds of the rent delay.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff and return the unpaid rent in arrears and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that may arise from the date of the completion of delivery of the apartment of this case.

(H) (Ground of Claim). Even if no lease agreement exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Defendants illegally occupy the instant apartment owned by the Plaintiff, so the Plaintiff may seek delivery of the said building by filing a claim against the Defendants for exclusion of disturbance based on ownership, and may claim restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent acquired without any legal ground until the delivery of the instant apartment is completed.

(2) The Defendants did not enter into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the apartment of this case. However, in order to avoid disadvantage due to the Defendants’ inheritance-related lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s loan of this case owned by Defendant C.