1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s preliminary counterclaim added by this court, is next to the judgment.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the request for extradition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent when the Defendant transferred the instant building from April 20, 2016 to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant occupied the instant building without a legitimate title.

However, as seen below in the judgment on the Defendant’s conjunctive counterclaim, the Plaintiff’s defense that the amount equivalent to the above rent should be deducted from April 20, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case as to the Defendant’s claim for acquisition of the same amount was deducted from the above transfer money, and there is no amount remaining after deduction from the above transfer money. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim a separate claim.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the obligation to return unjust enrichment in excess of the above amount of takeover.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment as to the defendant's assertion as to the main lawsuit and the main counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion that the building purchased by the defendant 501 is continuously residing by the existing tenant, and the non-party company only completed the registration of ownership transfer of the building No. 501 to the defendant, but failed to remove the lessee and deliver the building to the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant has a right of simultaneous performance defense to refuse to pay the remainder of KRW 100,000,000 until delivery of the building in 501, and there is no obligation to pay the remainder of the contract of the second sale and purchase of this case as the security deposit in lieu of KRW 100,000.

Therefore, the defendant is the building of this case.