A. On June 28, 201, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from the Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon Branch E (Dual), F (Joint), G (Joint), and H (Dual) auction cases, and acquired ownership in full or in full, August 11, 201.

B. From around December 201, Defendant B and D occupied each of the instant real estate from around July 201, Defendant C occupied each of the instant real estate from around July 2013, and the Plaintiff was handed over the instant real estate on December 26, 2014.

C. The amount equivalent to the rent of each of the instant real estate is KRW 26,255,833 from January 1, 2012 to July 2012, 2012, KRW 46,150,000 from August 1, 2012 to July 2013, and KRW 42,180,000 from August 1, 2013 to July 2014, and the amount equivalent to the rent is KRW 3,27,082 from August 1, 2014.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the profits from the use of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are obligated to claim payment of KRW 100,000,000 as part of the unjust enrichment during the period of possession by the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, and 15 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants’ assertion against the Defendants asserted that the possession of the instant real estate by delegation from I, J, K, etc., which is the lien holder of the instant real estate, is a legitimate possession. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that I, J, and K, etc. are the legitimate lien holder and that the Defendants occupied each of the instant real estate upon their delegation. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.