1. The Defendant shall deliver the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, and from November 17, 2014 to the completion date of the above delivery.

1. There is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff paid the auction price on November 17, 2014 and acquired ownership in the voluntary auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) commenced against the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) which was owned by the ter of the foundation-based facts company (hereinafter “the instant officetel”).

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant occupied and used the instant officetel, which is the Plaintiff’s owner, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant officetel to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and the Defendant’s possession of the instant officetel did not occupy it any longer by delivering it to D on October 17, 2014.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant: (a) leased, occupied, and used the instant officetel from June 17, 2013 to its address and did not yet move into the instant officetel; (b) upon receipt of the instant order against the Defendant on December 23, 2014, the Defendant executed the instant order on December 23, 2014 with respect to the instant officetel upon taking into account the following circumstances: (c) the Defendant continued possession of the instant officetel from before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership thereof to the date of the instant officetel; and (d) the fact that the instant officetel was directly received from the Defendant in the instant officetel; and (e) the Defendant did not have any other evidence submitted by the Defendant.

In addition, according to the entry of Gap evidence No. 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the rent of the instant officetel is recognized as the ground for 450,000 per month.