1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver C 2,572 square meters in Namyang-si;

(b) Attached 1 drawings on the ground of the land of paragraph (a);

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff obtained a permit for sale of C-Y 2,572 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate D (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) in Jungyang-si (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 18, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 21, 2016.

On the ground of the instant land, there are 13 square meters of “1” portion of “13 square meters in the ship connected in order to each point of 9, 10, 11, 2, and 9 in the attached Form No. 9, 10, 11, 2, and 9, and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 in the attached Form No. 1, 48 square meters of “2” portion of “2” in the ship connected in order to each point of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 in the attached Form No. 3,7, 8, 4, and 3

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant building, etc.” encompassing the building and structure above the instant land. From July 18, 2016 to January 31, 2017, rent of KRW 4,241,474 for the instant land is KRW 651,573, and monthly rent for the said period is KRW 651,573.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, result of the measurement appraisal commission for the Korea Land Information Corporation, result of the appraisal commission for appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, remove the building of this case on the ground of the above land, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent gained by occupying and using the land of this case without any legal ground.

With respect to the scope of unjust enrichment, 4,241,474 won, which is the amount equivalent to the rent for the above period, from July 18, 2016 to January 31, 2017, and as long as the defendant, from February 1, 2017 to February 1, 2017, denies voluntary performance while disputing the existence of the duty of delivery of the instant land, the following day of the closing date of the argument in this case.