1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) completed the registration of initial ownership on January 15, 2004 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment through the public auction procedure of Korea Asset Management Corporation delegated by Kimpo-si on October 2, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 12, 2018.

C. The Defendant completed the move-in report on the instant apartment on July 10, 2004 and resided in the said apartment from that time to that time, and the rent is KRW 1,368,000 per month after October 2, 2018 of the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 15, the result of appraisal by appraiser D of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant apartment, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and pay the amount calculated by applying the ratio of KRW 1,368,00 per month to the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent accrued from October 2, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment from October 2, 2018, to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the unjust enrichment of KRW 1,504,800 (including KRW 1,368,00 x 110 %, and value-added tax) by adding value-added tax to the rent of the apartment of this case. However, where the real estate owner seeks a return of a reasonable rent as unjust enrichment without based on the contract, it is difficult to regard it as “service transaction subject to taxation,” and there is no evidence that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the burden of value-added tax, and thus, it does not constitute unjust enrichment to be returned.

B. The defendant's defense, etc. is judged.