1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.

2. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff.

Description of Claim

On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff to the network D (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) for KRW 5 million, KRW 430,000 per month, KRW 430,000 per month, and the period from July 8, 2016 to July 7, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Deceased died on August 21, 2017, and his heir was the Defendant B and A, who is the spouse.

The Defendants jointly occupied and used the instant apartment after the Deceased’s death. The unpaid rent and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 7, 2018 to October 7, 2018 regarding the instant apartment is KRW 5,250,000, and the Plaintiff paid the management fee of KRW 447,160 from April 2018 to August 2018, which was not paid by the Defendants.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement has expired on July 7, 2018, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff due to its restitution.

Furthermore, the Defendants jointly share unjust enrichment due to joint possession and use and pay to the Plaintiff 697,160 won (=5,250,000 won - 5,000,000 won - 5,000,000 won) calculated by deducting the deposit from the above unpaid rent and management expenses for the substitute payment. From October 8, 2018, the Defendants are obligated to pay unjust enrichment calculated by applying the ratio of KRW 430,000 per month to the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership to the apartment of this case or the date of completion of the Defendants’ possession to the first day.

The plaintiff's reason for the partial dismissal of a non-litigation (Article 208 (3) 1 and Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Act) is that the defendants filed a claim for unjust enrichment from October 8, 2018 to the delivery date of the apartment of this case. However, in order for the court to order the future performance, not only the deadline for the performance of the obligation that arrives in the future but also the obligation that continues to exist until the time of the closing of argument.