1. The Defendants from the Plaintiff to October 21, 2016, from KRW 4,633,34 to the completion date of delivery of the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2015, on the instant building owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 1.5 million, KRW 1.5 million, and the period from March 31, 2015 to March 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

From the above date and time, Defendant B and her husband resided together in the building of this case.

B. The Defendants deposited the Plaintiff in the name of Defendant B, Defendant C, and D.

C. Defendant B is KRW 5,366,666 of the unpaid rent as of October 20, 2016.

On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the delinquency in rent for more than two years with the content certification of October 2, 2015, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 2, 2016 as the Plaintiff did not delay two or more vehicles.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the determination on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was terminated at least on the filing of the instant lawsuit with the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendants are obligated to jointly deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent and the unjust enrichment of KRW 5,366,66,66, which is equivalent to the rent, from October 21, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building. The Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,150,000 per month, which is equivalent to the rent, from October 21, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defenses, etc.

A. Defendant C’s assertion of possession as a possession assistant is merely an assistant to Defendant C’s possession, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is groundless.

Defendant C possessed the instant building while living together with Defendant C’s family as a family member.

Even if the above defendant refused the request for extradition of the plaintiff who is the owner without any title, the relationship with the plaintiff.