1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendant is revoked.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. The Defendants filed a claim for damages due to a purchase price claim and a provisional injunction against a counterclaim. The first instance court partly accepted each of the instant claims, and rendered a judgment dismissing a claim for the purchase price of a counterclaim, a partial acceptance of a claim for a counterclaim, and a claim for damages.

As to this, the Plaintiff appealed to the part of the claim for the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration and the part against the Plaintiff among the counterclaim. The Defendants appealed to the part against the Defendants among the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the lawsuit.

After that, the Plaintiff withdrawn the claim for the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration and the appeal against the counterclaim. On the other hand, the Plaintiff extended the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and added the claim for unpaid management fee.

Therefore, the part of the claim for the transfer registration of ownership and the part of the counterclaim are not included in the scope of the judgment of the court.

2. The court's explanation of the basic facts is the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance.

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 3. The allegations of the parties

A. Since the Plaintiff Defendants owned each of the instant real estate and occupied shares 334.94/457.8 (hereinafter “share of the instant land”) among the instant land without permission, they should pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from February 22, 2013, on which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land from February 22, 2013 to the date of completion of the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of each of the instant real estate.

In addition, under Article 4-D of the conciliation clause of this case, the defendants are obligated to pay the management expenses for each real estate of this case, but the management expenses are overdue from March 2013.