1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 as to the claim for extradition of real estate and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff regarding the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the fact that the Defendant currently occupies the instant real estate can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the real estate in this case is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate in this case to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.

2. The Plaintiff, without any legal cause, asserts that the Defendant gains profit equivalent to the rent while occupying and using the instant real estate without any legal ground, thereby causing damages equivalent to the rent of the said real estate, and that the amount equivalent to the rent of the said real estate is KRW 1,00,000 per month, and sought a return of unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per month from January 11, 2017 to the completion date of delivery.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the rent equivalent to the instant real estate is KRW 1,00,000 per month ( further, the Plaintiff stated that there is no proof plan regarding this part on the second date for pleading). The Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit without further review.

3. If so, the plaintiff's request for extradition of the real estate of this case is reasonable, and it is dismissed as the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.