1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) In the second floor of the building indicated in the attached Form, indication of drawings in the attached Form (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7);

Basic Facts

On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff was selected as a successful bidder in response to the procedure for public sale conducted by the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and on May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the attached building by paying the sale price.

Around January 7, 1998, Defendant B and E jointly leased and resided in the attached Form No. 52.36 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “D”) on the second floor of the indicated building among the second floor of the attached Table from F, the former owner of the building indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 52.36 square meters in the line connected each point in order.

After that, around January 19, 200, Defendant B solely leased Gho (hereinafter “Gho”) from among the second floor of the building indicated in the attached Form No. 199 to G, and thereafter, Defendant B resided only in E.

The base rent on May 23, 2017 for No. D is KRW 341,571 per month.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1 through Eul evidence, Eul evidence 2-3, and H appraiser's office's appraisal commission to the plaintiff's office, the defendant, the plaintiff's husband and wife, together with No. D, has the duty to deliver No. D to the plaintiff as the owner, and pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

Defendant B’s assertion is merely a possession assistant in managing heading D upon the request of Chokin E, and Defendant C is not a possession assistant of heading D.

Judgment

In full view of the contents of evidence No. 2, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 8 of the defendants' possession, the defendants can be recognized as possessing No. 4 together with the defendants, and there is no counter-proof.

On May 23, 2017, Defendant B asserted that Defendant B had a right to half of the Plaintiff’s telephone conversations with Defendant I as the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and that Defendant B had a right to half of the Plaintiff’s telephone conversations. ② The Plaintiff received a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of Category D and executed the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession. As a result, Defendant C’s powder, Defendant B’s credit card and mail within the scope of No. D at the time.