1. The defendant

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex;

B. (1) KRW 1,121,300 and its amount shall be December 19, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), 4.05/1,345.8 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) were owned by the original C. On October 29, 2010, Seoul Central District Court D with respect to the instant shares.

B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant share while paying the successful bid price on February 10, 2012 after receiving the successful bid price.

C. From June 27, 2012, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination:

A. (1) According to the above facts, the defendant who occupies the building of this case is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff seeking preservation as one of the co-owners of the building of this case, unless he proves the source of right to possess the building of this case, and to return as unjust enrichment the amount equivalent to the share of this case out of the rent of this case during the period of occupation and use of the building of this case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 78Da2088 delivered on January 30, 1979).

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the actual owner of the instant building is C, and the remaining co-owners are the status of the title trustee with respect to the instant building, and the Defendant leased the instant building to KRW 140,00,000 on June 27, 2012 by E delegated the authority to conclude a lease contract with respect to the instant building by the said C, and thus, the Defendant has legitimate possession and authority with respect to the instant building.

The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is insufficient to recognize that the actual owner of the instant building is C, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.