1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached Form.

2. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2014.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with defendant B on October 8, 2014 with regard to real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "real estate of this case") at KRW 730,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 102471 on October 14, 2014 for this reason, and the fact that defendant B and his husband were residing in the real estate of this case from the above sales contract to the present date can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on October 14, 2014 by completing the registration of transfer of ownership, while the Defendants who continued to reside in the instant real estate even thereafter possess the instant real estate unlawfully. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and jointly return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent during the illegal occupation period.

Furthermore, examining the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendants, there is no dispute between the parties on the grounds that the difference in the instant real estate is the 2,000,000 won per month, and thus, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rate of KRW 2,00,000 per month from November 1, 2014 to the date of completion of delivery of the instant real estate, as sought by the Plaintiff.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff had no right to seek delivery of the instant real estate or seek restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, since the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by forging a sales contract on the instant real estate. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion. Rather, in full view of the evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 5-1 and No. 3, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff forged the sales contract on the instant real estate (No. 1).