1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Determination on a request for extradition

A. The plaintiff is the owner of each real estate of this case. Since the defendants possess each real estate of this case, the plaintiff asserts that they seek the delivery of each real estate of this case based on the claim for return of ownership.

B. According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff purchased a building listed in the separate sheet including each of the instant real estate on June 29, 2015, but on the other hand, according to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the said building was sold to Samra Co., Ltd. on November 27, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it solely based on the facts found earlier.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's above claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of each real estate of this case is without merit.

2. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate. Since the Defendants continue to possess each of the instant real estate jointly from that time without legitimate title, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was entitled to the payment of monthly rent from June 30, 2015 to November 30, 2016, which was the end of the month before the instant lawsuit was filed, of KRW 140,478,239, and the monthly delay damages from August 1, 2015 to December 20, 2016, of KRW 6,105,321, and of KRW 140,478,239 as well as the monthly delay damages from August 1, 2015 to December 20, 2016, of KRW 140,478,239 as well as the delayed delay damages from the date following the filing of the instant lawsuit, and that the payment of the instant unjust enrichment from December 1, 2016 to 208.

The Defendants asserted that each of the instant real estate possessed by Nonparty E Co., Ltd. rather than the Defendants.

(b).