1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:

(a) deliver real estate indicated in the annexed real estate;

(b) November 2018;

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 6 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff: (a) on May 16, 2017, set lease deposit amounting to KRW 30 million; and (b) on May 16, 2017, leased the instant building with KRW 1050,000,000 for monthly rent; (c) however, the fact that the Defendants are residing in the instant building is recognized.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the above building to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

In addition, the Defendants are obligated to return the instant building in unjust enrichment because they obtain profit equivalent to the profit from the occupation and use of the building of this case and thereby inflict loss equivalent to the same amount on the Plaintiff, which is the lessor. The amount of unjust enrichment is KRW 1,50,000 per month, which is the amount equivalent to the rent for the building of this case. The Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 1,50,000 per month from November 22, 2018 to the delivery date of the instant building, as requested by the Plaintiff.

2. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that the instant building cannot be transferred before the remainder of the lease deposit, after deducting the overdue charge from the lease deposit paid by the Plaintiff, cannot be returned. However, as seen earlier, Defendant B occupied the instant building without any possessory right, and the above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified, and this is accepted.