1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and deliver the said real estate from October 20, 2015.

In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the non-party No. 10,000,000, KRW 350,000, KRW 350,000, and the lease term of 24 months on October 24, 2012 with respect to the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant real estate") as to the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant real estate") on October 24, 2012, on the ground that the lease agreement is renewed after October 24, 2014, and the lease agreement is renewed and maintained after the expiration of the contract, and the plaintiff filed an application against D for provisional disposition against D to prohibit the transfer of possession without the consent of the plaintiff. The defendants are recognized to have leased the instant real estate from D and currently resided.

According to the above facts, a lease agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and D on the instant real estate was terminated as a default of rent. Since the Defendants transferred the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent, they cannot oppose the Plaintiff, and eventually, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Defendants occupied the instant real estate as above, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the profits from the use of the said real estate without any legal grounds, and causing damages to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment of KRW 350,000 for the monthly rent from October 20, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, if the Plaintiff accepted the instant real estate to D, it would allow D to reside in the instant real estate until the instant real estate is removed, and that D would have spent construction expenses for leasing the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendants asserted that D would have the right to attract the instant real estate until the said expenses are reimbursed for D.

However, according to the statement of No. 1, the lease contract concluded between the plaintiff and D is concluded.