(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. 1,615,490 Won and the above A. from January 1, 2014

A. The network C (hereinafter “the deceased”) has owned from around 1968 the buildings indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. When the deceased died on May 24, 1995, the Plaintiff, as co-inheritors of the deceased, was succeeded to the instant building by the agreement on the division of inherited property with the other co-inheritors.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, around July 2012, opened a correction device for the instant building and up to now occupied and used the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4-1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-10, Eul evidence 1, each fact inquiry result against the head of the complete Gun of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In light of the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, according to the result of appraisal of rent by an appraiser I with respect to the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant, the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant real estate from January 2, 2012 to October 31, 2014 is as shown in the attached Form. Unless there are special circumstances, the subsequent rent is also the same as the rent for the period from November 2014. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the sum of unjust enrichment for the period from August 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013: 1,615,490 won = 479,450 won (the amount of rent for five months from August 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014) from December 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014 (the amount of rent for x95,90 won from December 1, 2014 to December 13, 194).

Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent even during the period from January 1, 2012 to July 31, 2012. However, it can be recognized that the Defendant occupied and used the instant building during the said period.