1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Attached Map 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a branch number) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of real estate listed in the separate sheet on May 13, 2015. The defendant occupied and used the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 27 square meters inside the ship connected each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 (hereinafter “instant store”). The rent for the instant store can be recognized as the fact that the rent for the instant store is 350,000 per month.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 350,000 per month from May 14, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. On October 8, 2013, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because he leased the instant store from Nonparty C, but there is no evidence to support that the said C has the right to lease the instant store or may oppose the Plaintiff by the said lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.