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:

(a) 8,111.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and executed the same year.

6. 22. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate.

B. From April 1, 2015, the Defendants asserted a lien on the instant real estate and possessed the instant real estate from around April 1, 2015.

C. On September 8, 2015, Defendant B issued to the Plaintiff a letter of undertaking stating that “Defendant B who occupied the instant real estate without permission shall deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff by October 30, 2015.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the request for extradition of the instant real estate, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. In a case where multiple persons jointly used another person’s property without any legal cause in determining the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, the obligation to return unjust enrichment is indivisible as a return of benefit, barring any special circumstance. An indivisible obligation is an indivisible obligation, and each obligor is obligated to perform the entire obligation, and the other obligor is also exempted from the obligation due to one obligor’s performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13948, Dec. 11, 2001). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the foregoing facts acknowledged as above, the Defendants jointly occupied and used the instant real estate from April 1, 2015 to the present, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent and causing damage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants jointly liable to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the health care unit and appraiser D’s appraisal results, the instant real estate is subject to the overall purport of pleadings.