Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed Party B shall be in attached Form.

The court of the first instance accepted the request for delivery of a building among them and dismissed the request for return of unjust enrichment.

Since the defendant, etc. appealed against this, the object of this Court's adjudication is limited to the claim for the above building.

2. Determination on the part requesting a building

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2, the Defendant, etc., who is the father, entered into a lease contract for the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the Plaintiff as the lessee on March 3, 2016, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1200,000 (the later payment on March 14), and the period of March 13, 2017 as of March 15, 2017; the Defendant, etc. failed to pay the monthly rent after May 15, 2016; the Plaintiff, around September 30, 2016, notified the Plaintiff that he/she would not pay the rent for the instant case to the designated lessee by October 14, 2016; and the Plaintiff, etc., notified the Plaintiff of his/her intention to terminate the lease of the instant building to the extent that he/she would not pay the rent.

B. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on November 3, 2016 on the grounds of the buyer B’s delinquency in rent, and the Defendant, etc. is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. (1) At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant et al. followed the building to operate the frequency of collection in the instant building.