2. The plaintiff's remainder against the defendants.

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B were married on September 11, 1998 and divorced on August 4, 2006. Defendants C and D were the sames of Defendant B, and the Defendants were the deceased on June 10, 2018’s property successors (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by the Deceased on August 30, 2016. On November 9, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the grounds of sale in the name of F, the births of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff, the deceased’s f, the births of the deceased, and the Plaintiff’s s/2 shares on the grounds of sale in the name of the deceased. As of February 6, 2018, the ownership transfer registration was completed on the grounds of sale in the name of F on the part of the Plaintiff.

C. The Deceased was killed while residing in the instant real property, and the decedent’s remains within the instant real property.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 9, 10 evidence, Eul 4 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the claim for extradition of real estate, the defendants succeeded to the possession of the deceased's real estate as the deceased's property heir. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate in this case presumed to be its owner to the plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the deceased trusted the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff is null and void pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and thus, the Defendants did not have the right to seek the delivery of the instant real estate. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the deceased held the title trust of the instant real estate or shares thereof to the Plaintiff directly or through F solely on the basis of the descriptions in Eul 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Eul, and 1, and Eul 2 or 9. There is no other evidence to

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

B. As to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff.