The first instance court accepted the entire claim for extradition of the instant real estate, and partly accepted the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent and rent.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appealed against the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent and the amount of the overdue rent, and the defendant did not appeal.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs specified the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears and the amount of the rent in arrears from December 15, 2017 to January 31, 2019, which was the time of the actual completion of delivery, as the total of KRW 154,671,00 (calculated as KRW 133,650,00) from January 31, 2019. Further, the plaintiffs added the claim for compensation for delay to the selective claim, and added the claim for payment for delay, as the selective claim, the sum of the rent in arrears and the amount of the rent in arrears plus KRW 154,671,00 from January 31, 2019.

Accordingly, the subject of this Court's ruling is limited to the claim for monetary payment, including the plaintiffs' claims added by this Court.

2. The reasons why this Court has used this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the following cases: (a) the third party decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant around January 21, 2019 are the Defendant.