1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is changed as follows:

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 18,958.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following reasons. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court, the term “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.” is deemed to read “Plaintiff”; “Defendant G” to read “Defendant”; “Plaintiff Co., Ltd. New Housing”; “Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F” to read “Defendant A, C, D, E, and F” to read “Co-Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F of the first instance trial.”

B. Defendant G was occupied and used from the date of delivery of the complaint to the date of the closing of argument in the instant case” in the fourth and twentyth of the first instance judgment. “The Defendant occupied and used the complaint from the date of delivery to July 30, 2013.”

(c) The 5th and 4th of the first instance judgment are as follows: (a) there is no dispute over the 5th and 4th of the judgment; (b) Gap evidence 1-1 to 6; (c) Gap evidence 2 and 5; (d) Gap evidence 18-1; and (e) Gap evidence 20; and (e) the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The Defendant’s judgment on the defense prior to the merits does not own the instant real estate, and thus, the part seeking the delivery of real estate in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for performance, the defendant's standing to be a defendant in a lawsuit for performance is replaced by the plaintiff's own claim, and the judgment was absorbed into the propriety judgment of the claim, and the person asserted as a person responsible for delivery by the plaintiff is a legitimate defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 29, 201 to July 30, 2013, which is the date on which the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate, after serving a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff. 2) Furthermore, the Defendant is obliged to return the same.