1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:

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

B. From June 17, 2015, the foregoing.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant pen”).

B. Nonparty D entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B, setting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million with respect to the instant pentent, annual rent of KRW 27 million (2.5 million per month).

C. Defendant B remitted to D KRW 4 million on March 27, 2014, and KRW 29 million on April 10, 2014, and the Defendants began to conduct business in the instant pention upon delivery of the instant pention on April 10, 2014.

Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B. D.

On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that the instant lease agreement had expired, and demanded the Defendants to deliver the instant pension.

E. The Defendants did not deliver the instant penure to the Plaintiff until the closing date of the pleadings of this case and resided therein.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendants, the co-owner of the instant pention, are obligated to deliver the instant pention to the plaintiff, the owner of the instant pention, barring special circumstances. 2) The defendants, as to this, have the duty to return the deposit from the lessor D and deliver the instant pention to the plaintiff at the same time. However, even according to the defendants' assertion itself, the defendants have the right to claim the refund of the deposit against D, which is not the plaintiff, and therefore, they cannot oppose the plaintiff as the above defense.

The defendants' arguments are not accepted.

B. On or after April 10, 2015, the date when the instant lease contract was terminated, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of unjust enrichment against the Defendants.

According to the purport of the entire argument, the plaintiff is against D, his father.