For the plaintiffs, the defendant

(a) deliver real estate Nos. D listed in the Appendix Nos. 1, as from June 1, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs share all of the units (F units, G units, D units, E units, hereinafter “each unit of this case”) listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 attached Table Nos. 2 attached hereto (hereinafter “each unit of this case”) and the F units and G units of the aggregate building are owned by each 1/2 shares of each unit (hereinafter “the aggregate building of this case”).

B. The Defendant, together with his family members, has occupied and used each of the houses of this case without paying a deposit or monthly rent.

(c)

Since October 4, 2016, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to deliver each of the subparagraphs of this case to the defendant. The plaintiffs explicitly demanded the delivery on February 24, 2019.

The defendant, while refusing this, was rather entitled to share the entire aggregate building of this case against the plaintiffs on April 5, 2019.

The appeal (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2019Na211945, hereinafter referred to as the "prior judgment") was dismissed and the final judgment became final and conclusive. The appeal (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2019Na42621) and the appeal were dismissed.

(d)

From June 1, 2019 to June 1, 2019, the monthly rent of 620,000 won for each subparagraph of the instant subparagraph, the monthly rent of 850,000 won for each subparagraph of the instant subparagraph, the monthly rent of 580,000 won for each subparagraph of the F, and the monthly rent of 410,000 won for each subparagraph of the instant subparagraph.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the appraisal result of appraiser H, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the units of this case to the joint owners, and return unfair profits equivalent to the rent due to illegal occupation (as seen below, the defendant did not prove the right to possess each of the units of this case against the exercise of the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of the property owned by him/her. Thus, even if the defendant's possession right based on each of the units of this case is a loan for use with no agreement for the use period, the lender shall be the lender when the period sufficient for the use and profit expires.