1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiffs sought against the Defendants the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 300,000 per month until the delivery of the instant real estate and the delivery of the instant real estate. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim for the delivery of real estate and dismissed the claim for return of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, since only the defendants filed an appeal, the scope of the party members' appeal is limited to the claim for extradition of the real estate of this case.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “B-13 evidence” added and submitted in the trial due to lack of evidence of the Defendants’ assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(3) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants would produce the instant real estate between E and New Bank Co., Ltd. on October 29, 2013, in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs had not yet due date for the repayment of the loans, and the repayment of the secured obligation once to the New Bank Co., Ltd. on October 29, 2013. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 8-1 and No. 2, the facts can be established as of October 28, 2013, given that the period for the repayment of the secured obligation under the right to collateral security (1) was not due date for the payment of the loans, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is justifiable.