1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

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

(b) 3,161,181 Won and October 1, 2018.

1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by appraiser E: (a) No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2;

On July 29, 2010, the networkF completed the registration of ownership transfer due to a compulsory auction on the same date with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On February 17, 2017, the netF left the Plaintiffs, who are his/her father, as his/her heir, and died on the part of his/her heir.

C. From November 21, 2014, the Defendant, a partner of the net F, is residing in the instant real estate from around November 21, 2014 to the date of closing the argument of the instant case.

Meanwhile, the monthly rent of the instant real estate from February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018 is KRW 283,333, and the monthly rent from February 1, 2018 to July 31, 2018 is KRW 306,667 (the aggregate of the rent for the instant period is KRW 1840,00).

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs and return unjust enrichment from the use of and profit from the real estate of this case, unless there are other special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant leased the instant real estate from the deceased F, and thus, the Defendant’s possession is lawful. The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, in order to seek delivery of the instant building, the Plaintiff should return the deposit amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant. 2) The authenticity of the entire document is presumed presumed to have been established, as the Plaintiff unilaterally prepares this document after the deceased F’s death, and arbitrarily affixs the seal of the deceased F. However, according to the entries in subparagraphs 6 through 9, the Plaintiffs asserted that the document was forged, but it is insufficient to recognize it only with the entries in subparagraphs 6 through 9, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise).