(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) jointly start on June 5, 2018.

A. On February 13, 2015, the instant building was transferred to Defendant B on February 13, 2015, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 26, 2017.

B. On May 10, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building through a general competitive bidding method from E Co., Ltd. and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future as the Seoul Central District Court’s Jung-gu Branch Office was received on June 5, 2018.

C. Defendant B and his mother C occupy and use the instant building.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Defendants, the co-owner of the instant building, who did not assert and prove that there was a particular possessory right over the instant building as to the claim for delivery of the building, are obligated to deliver each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building.

However, since the duty to deliver the building does not bear the joint and several obligation among the occupants, the part against the defendants to seek the delivery of the building of this case is without merit.

B. The Defendants, who filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment, have occupied the building of this case without title and obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the building of this case. Based on the result of the commission of appraisal of rent for F of this Court, in the case of the building of this case without lease deposit until June 5, 2018, the monthly rent is KRW 783,00 for the building of this case, and it is confirmed that it would be the same in the future. Therefore, the Defendants, as co-owners of the building of this case, jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 783,00,000, which is the monthly rent, until delivery of the building of this case is completed.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of the instant claim is with merit within the scope of recognition above.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition.