1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached Form, and the said real estate shall be KRW 15,687,160 and January 19, 2017.

1.The following facts of recognition may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of a request for rent appraisal with respect to A and this Court, provided that there is no difference between the parties, or that there is a statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 6 (including the number of pages).

The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate on July 29, 2010 and acquired its ownership in the procedure of compulsory auction by official auction in Incheon District Court D real estate.

B. The defendant occupies the above real estate before the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case.

C. The sum of the rent for the instant real estate from July 29, 2010 to January 18, 2017 is KRW 15,687,160, and the rent for January 19, 2017 is KRW 177,220.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the said real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant real estate, and to pay the said real estate in return of unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 15,687,160 and KRW 177,220 per month from January 19, 2017 to the delivery date of the said real estate.

The defendant asserts that "E, the former owner of the instant real estate, entered into a lease agreement with E and the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, and occupied the said real estate upon delivery, and also completed the move-in report, the plaintiff succeeded to the obligation to return the above deposit to E. Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving the above deposit from the plaintiff."

In light of the fact that the judgment against the Defendant was rendered in the Incheon District Court 2016Kadan32864, which claimed the above assertion and claimed the return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff, the separate entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone are insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit.