(a) deliver the real estate listed in Attachment 2;

(b) pay 76,37,760 won;

The main purport of the claim is, without a legitimate title, possession of each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land No. 1” and “the instant land No. 2”) owned by the Plaintiff, and construction and ownership of the instant building on the ground of the instant land No. 1 and 2. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land and remove the instant building, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the instant land No. 1 and 2.

The facts that the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was owned by the plaintiff, and the fact that the defendant occupied the land Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of the lawsuit of this case is not a dispute between the parties. Barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant newly constructed and owned the instant building by concluding a land lease agreement with the former owner of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2. However, even after the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land, the Defendant’s possession of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 was lawful, since it was permitted from C, the representative of the Plaintiff, to use the instant land no. 1 and 2 until the Defendant’s husband died, the Defendant’s possession of the instant land Nos. 8-2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4-1, 2, and 4-1, 4-1, 2, and 3 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff concluded a land lease agreement with respect to the instant land Nos. 1 and 2.

Next, the defendant did not take any measures despite the defendant's knowledge that he had occupied the land Nos. 1 and 2 in the building of this case from the time when he acquired the ownership of the land Nos. 1 and 2, and the defendant's assertion to occupy the land Nos. 1 and 2 without permission is inconsistent with the prior act.