1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From July 26, 2016, the above A

subsection (b).

Facts of recognition

On October 4, 2013, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the future in Korea Co., Ltd. on the instant real estate.

C On October 14, 2003, after completing the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer with respect to the real estate of this case on September 7, 2007, the registration of transfer of the above provisional registration was completed to the State industry.

The state industry completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 20, 207 on the basis of the above provisional registration, but the plaintiff cancelled the registration of ownership transfer on May 15, 2015 by subrogation of Eiby Korea Co., Ltd. according to the final judgment of the Busan High Court (original Court) 2010Na623 case.

On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on April 21, 2015.

On the other hand, on October 15, 2013, the Defendant leased the instant real estate from the Jeju Industries to the present date and resided therein, and the rent from May 16, 2015 to April 15, 2017 is KRW 262,50 per month.

【In light of the facts without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6, the result of the commission of appraiser D by this court, and the facts acknowledged prior to the duty to deliver the building to the plaintiff as the possessor of the instant real estate, barring any special circumstance, the defendant, who is the possessor of the instant real estate, is obligated to deliver the said real estate to the plaintiff as the owner.

The Plaintiff seeking a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from May 16, 2015 to the delivery date of the instant real estate, following the date on which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate.

According to Article 197 of the Civil Code, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the possessor in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own will. The possessor in good faith is deemed to have been in bad faith from the time of filing the lawsuit to the time of the loss in the lawsuit on this case. In addition, according to Article 201(1) of the Civil Code, the possessor in good faith is not by violence or in secret.