1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

(b) 31,943,516 Won and as regards this.

1. The description of the claim is as shown in the annexed sheet of claim.

2. Judgment with no applicable provisions of Acts (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The Plaintiff seeking partial dismissal from June 12, 2017 to December 31, 2017 for the payment of damages for delay calculated from January 1, 2018 for the amount of 31,943,516 won equivalent to the rent due to possession from June 12, 2017.

However, since a claim for return of unjust enrichment is interpreted as a debt under the provisions of law and there is no provision of time limit, there is a delay liability from the next day of the peremptory notice for

In the instant case where there is no assertion that the Plaintiff exercised the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant before filing the instant lawsuit, the fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint containing an expression of intent to claim return of unjust enrichment was served on the Defendant on February 19, 2018 is apparent. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay damages for delay from February 20, 2018, following the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint, to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay exceeding the above recognition scope is rejected.