1. Defendant B and D shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the annexed sheet.

2. The plaintiff's remainder against defendant B and D.

1. Claim against Defendant B and D

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers):

1) The Plaintiff’s real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”)

(2) The Plaintiff, around May 2008, allowed Defendant B to reside free of charge in the instant building, and thereafter Defendant B, a child, in the instant building, has been residing in Defendant D, E and until now.

3 The Plaintiff requested Defendant B to deliver the instant building on or around August 2013, but Defendant B refused to deliver the building upon the demand of the director’s expenses.

B. According to the above facts, around May 2008, the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and D entered into a loan agreement for use without setting the time limit for the instant building, and it is reasonable to deem that the period sufficient for the Plaintiff to use the instant building has elapsed from that time until August 2013 when the Plaintiff demanded the delivery of the instant building. Thus, the Plaintiff may terminate the said loan agreement at any time pursuant to the proviso to Article 613 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, around August 2013, the Plaintiff demanded the delivery of the instant building, as the loan for use of the instant building was lawfully terminated, Defendant B and D are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

As to this, Defendant B and D agreed to reside in the building of this case until the removal due to the rebuilding decision, and asserted that there was no obligation to deliver the building of this case as the rebuilding decision has not yet been made, but the above assertion is rejected as there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

C. Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from September 1, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the rent of the instant building is KRW 500,000 per month. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is without merit.

2. Defendant.