1. The defendant

(a)in respect of the buildings listed in Attachment 2, indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, among the buildings listed in Attachment 2;

The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 14, 2009 with respect to the land listed in attached list 1. The fact that the Defendant occupied the same part of the building indicated in attached list 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 1, among the buildings listed in attached list 2, owned by the Defendant, with the same part of the building indicated in attached list 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 1, or 5.4m2, which is owned by the Defendant, is not in dispute between the parties, or is not subject to a request

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the above female portion and deliver the part of the land to the plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the date of completion of the removal and delivery.

I would like to say.

According to the results of appraisal of the rent of this court concerning the scope of unjust enrichment, 716,057 won in total for the period from September 14, 2009 to March 20, 2015, which was served on the defendant with a copy of the complaint of this case from September 14, 2009 (i.e., 130,590 won to March 20, 2015) (i.e., 129,650 won 129,650 won 129,840 won 129,840 won x 102,840 won x 188/290 won x 180 days x 290 won, 36,073 won in total for the period from March 16, 2015 to 20, and 205 x 16,75% in total for the period from June 30, 2015 to x 25 x 167.7 days in this case