1. The defendant shall indicate, among the buildings listed in the attached list of real estate to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the annexed drawings (1), (2), (3), (4).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 1, 2014, while the Plaintiff owned a building listed in the list of real estate attached thereto (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant the part of 97.68 square meters (201 square meters) in the ship connected with each of the said items in sequence. The lease deposit was determined to be KRW 15,00,000, KRW 1300,000, KRW 120,000, KRW 120,000, and the lease period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.

B. Even after the expiration of the above lease term, the above lease contract continues to be maintained by implied renewal. On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the said lease contract will be terminated as of December 31, 2015, on the ground that the instant building was included in C urban environment rearrangement project zone.

C. Ownership of the instant building was transferred on March 30, 2018 to the Plaintiff’s successor through the Center City Stock Company.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap’s evidence 1-2, Gap’s evidence 3-6, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the above lease contract was terminated after the lapse of December 31, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor to 201 out of the instant building, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 1,420,000 in total of the rent and management fee every month from March 15, 2018 to the above order date, upon request by the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, a copy of the instant complaint was served as requested by the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor.

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's successor cannot respond to the claim of the plaintiff's successor until the result of re-appraisal of the defendant's business loss compensation was made with respect to the above improvement project. However, since the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff's successor based on ownership is based on ownership, the defendant

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's motion by the succeeding intervenor is reasonable.