Defendant D shall be the Plaintiff

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From February 1, 2017, the foregoing paragraph (a) is described.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Evidence A Nos. 1 through 5, the Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”); the Plaintiff, on December 28, 2015, leased the instant real estate to the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”); the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff died on November 3, 2016, together with the deceased’s residence on the instant real estate; and it is evident that the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground that the lease agreement was terminated on the following grounds: (a) the lease was determined from December 28, 2015 to August 31, 2017; (b) the Deceased did not pay the rent from February 2017 to co-inheritors; and (c) Defendant D, who died on November 3, 2016, could be recognized as having been living together with the deceased; and (d) the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the instant real estate.

According to the above facts, Defendant D, who had a communal living in the real estate of this case at the time of the deceased’s death, succeeds to the rights and obligations of the deceased, a lessee (Article 9(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act). Since the lease contract was terminated by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, Defendant D is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the Plaintiff, and to pay the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 47,500 per month from February 1, 2017, when the delivery of the real estate of this case is completed.

The Plaintiff also sought unjust enrichment against Defendant C, which is equivalent to the delivery, rent, or rent of the instant real estate. However, unless there is any assertion as to the fact that Defendant C was living as a family in the instant real estate at the time of the death of the Deceased, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have succeeded to the rights and duties of the deceased, who is a lessee, jointly with Defendant D. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant D is justified, and it is accepted by the defendant.