1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.

2. Defendant B’s act from February 1, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendants’ possession of the building can be acknowledged by taking account of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants have the duty to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

2. On January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B to lease the instant building with a deposit of KRW 5 million and KRW 800,000 per month. The Defendant B paid the Plaintiff KRW 80,000 on January 28, 2014, and the fact that the said deposit and the remainder are not paid is no dispute between the parties.

In addition, the plaintiff filed a claim to deliver the building of this case through the complaint of this case on the ground that the defendant did not pay the above security deposit and rent, and thus, the plaintiff agreed to deliver the building of this case.

Therefore, according to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to pay rent or unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 800,000 from February 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.

(Plaintiff sought the payment of rent from January 1, 2014. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant paid the rent once a month around January 28, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is rejected. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is justified within the recognized scope, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, D, and E is accepted for all reasons.