1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From August 12, 2016, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 14, 2003, D completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on October 14, 2003, and completed the registration of the transfer of the said provisional registration to E on September 7, 2007.

B. On September 20, 2007, a limited liability company E completed the registration of ownership transfer on the basis of the above provisional registration. However, on May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff cancelled the registration of ownership transfer by subrogation in accordance with the final judgment of Busan High Court (original Court) 2010Na623.

C. On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on April 21, 2015.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant leased the instant real estate from a limited liability company E on November 7, 2013 to reside until now, and the rent from May 16, 2015 to March 15, 2017 is KRW 288,600 per month.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 4, and Eul No. 1, and the result of an entrustment of appraisal by this court to appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition prior to the determination on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 288,60 per month from August 12, 2016 to the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff, as the date the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate.

3. First of all, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's sales contract on April 21, 2015 concerning the real estate of this case was null and void or its ownership becomes null and void due to revocation of fraudulent act, and thus, he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, there is no evidence to prove that the ownership of the plaintiff with respect to the real estate of this case was extinguished. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion