A. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs paid in full the purchase price of the instant building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”) in the voluntary auction procedure (this Court K case) concerning each building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) around October 15, 2014, and the Defendants have been occupying and using the instant building since before that time, are not in dispute between the parties, and the entire purport of the pleadings is added to the result of the court’s entrustment of rent appraisal as to the appraiser L and the fact inquiry as a result of the fact inquiry. If the amount equivalent to rent from around October 2014 to around March 2016, the fact that the amount equivalent to rent from around 10,590,500 won for the instant building is 10,500 won per month, and even after the date of closing the argument of the instant building, the amount equivalent to the rent is confirmed to

According to the facts acknowledged as above, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly and severally (the so-called “unpaid debt”) are liable to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent amounting to 10,590,500 won per month from October 15, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case, and (2) as requested by the Plaintiffs, to return unjust enrichment amounting to 10,590,500 won per month.

B. On this basis, the Defendants cannot respond to the Plaintiffs’ request for the delivery of the instant building on the ground that (i) as a lessee of the instant building, the lessee of the building, the amount of KRW 841,884,771 in total for KRW 841,84,771, the lessor’s claim based on the special agreement to demand reimbursement of the cost or the special agreement to return the cost of reimbursement or facility costs as the secured claim; and (ii) in the event that the secured claim and the Plaintiffs’ claim are set off against an equal amount of the right to claim the return of the above unlawful gains, or the Plaintiffs’ claim for reimbursement is satisfied, the Defendants’ obligation to return the unjust enrichment