1. Of the instant lawsuit, part of the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 23, 2015 against the Defendants of Plaintiff A.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff B filed a general restaurant business report (hereinafter “instant business report”) in the name of “E” in the building listed in the attached Table 1 list owned by it (hereinafter “instant building”), and operated a restaurant with the Plaintiff, the wife of whom, together with the Plaintiff, sold fishing gear, etc.

B. On May 28, 2014, Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 27, 2014 with respect to the instant building on the ground of donation to Plaintiff A.

C. On June 7, 2012, the name of the representative of the instant business report was changed from Plaintiff B to Defendant C, who is its leakage, and the Defendants were married couple at around that time, who resided on the second floor of the instant building and operated the “E” restaurant on the first floor.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Plaintiff A’s assertion 1) The Defendants asserted that: (a) around March 2012, Plaintiff B and the Defendants entered into a loan agreement for use with respect to the instant building for a period of two years from June 1, 2012; or (b) even if no agreement was reached, the said period has expired; (c) the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff; (d) the Defendants asserted that: (a) the sales agreement was concluded between Plaintiff B and the Defendants with respect to the instant building at KRW 150,00,000; and (b) the Defendants agreed to deliver the instant building to the Defendants before the full payment of the purchase price was made; and (c) the Defendants were transferred possession of the instant building; and therefore, (d) the Defendants were entitled to possess the building; and (e) the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.