A. Defendant C leaves the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant B shall list 1 attached hereto.

A. On November 4, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 2, 2002 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s birth, used the instant real estate from around 2003, and at present Defendant C, who was permitted by Defendant B, used the instant real estate.

C. The monthly rent for the instant real estate in 2016 is KRW 1,280,620, and the monthly rent in 2017 is KRW 1,465,790.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the result of appraiser D's appraisal of rent, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants’ determination as to this safety defense did not have the ability to conduct litigation since they suffered from her early 1986 and they did not have the ability to conduct litigation. The lawsuit of this case was filed by delegation of litigation to the Plaintiff’s legal representative. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is unlawful. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 6, in regard to the Plaintiff, the adult guardian F was established on January 9, 2017 by Busan District Court Decision 2016Ra364, and the adult guardian F was appointed. The adult guardian F ratified the litigation of this case and delegated the lawsuit again to the Plaintiff’s legal representative while taking over the litigation of this case. Thus, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is lawful.

(1) The defendants asserted that the adult guardian of the plaintiff did not obtain permission from the court in order for the plaintiff to conduct the litigation. However, according to the Gap evidence No. 7, the plaintiff's adult guardian can be acknowledged as having obtained permission from the court in relation to the litigation of this case. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case and permitted the use of the real estate to the defendant B, who is the birthee, from around 208.