1. The plaintiff's appeal, the claim selected by the appellate court, and the change in exchange at the appellate court.

1. The grounds for the judgment of this court in this part of the findings shall be the same as the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance; and

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, “Defendant C” is regarded as “Defendant C of the first instance trial.”

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is occupying and using the instant officetel.

① The Defendant shall deliver the instant officetel.

② The Defendant shall pay the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 9.50,000 per month from May 4, 2010 to the delivery date of the building of this case, following the delivery of the certificate of contents demanding the Defendant to leave by either return of unjust enrichment or compensation for tort.

③ Since then on October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff bears 6,885,400 won for management expenses incurred up to September 2014, as the management expenses incurred up to September 6, 2014, it shall be paid as damages for tort.

3. In light of the following facts, as to whether the Defendant occupied and used the instant officetel, the Defendant: (a) transferred the instant officetel from September 16, 2010 to the Plaintiff at the time when the Defendant’s wife was removed from the instant officetel or at a close time; and (b) there was no further possession.

In other words, since 1977, the plaintiff knew the defendant from around February 2002 and operated a business such as the lease of real estate and investment with the defendant from February 2002, and on the other hand, there was living together relation.

The defendant's father, C, as his father, had had the plaintiff as his father, and the plaintiff also had the plaintiff paid living expenses to C, and the plaintiff also had the back of his living expenses.

The Plaintiff was the representative of D Co., Ltd., and the Company owned or managed the E-building in which the instant officetels is located, and the Plaintiff managed it through the Director of the Management Office.

The Plaintiff was working in the office immediately next to the instant officetel.

During that period, the plaintiff and the defendant had failed from April 2009, and the defendant filed against the plaintiff around September 2009.