1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[However, the part of the first instance court's joint defendants B, D, and E, which became separate and conclusive, is excluded] 2. Goon 2.6, the third part of the first instance court's judgment "the building of this case" is changed into "the real estate of this case".

First Instance 10 to 17 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

According to the above facts, the defendant, while occupying the real estate in this case with co-defendant B of the court of first instance, has earned a considerable amount of profit from the use of the real estate in this case, and thereby has inflicted damages equivalent to the same amount on the plaintiff, who is the owner of the real estate in this case. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the co-defendant B of the court of first instance to deliver the real estate in this case to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from July 27, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate in this case from July 27, 2016 to the date of delivery of the real estate in this case. Furthermore, in full view of the amount of unjust enrichment to be paid by the defendant, the result of appraisal by the appraiser F of the court of first instance and the purport of all pleadings, the rent of the real estate in this case from July 27, 2016 to December 8, 2017 can be recognized as constituting 1,400,00.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair.