1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff (appointed party) who falls under the above revoked part.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 8, 2016, D leased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to E, with the lease deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 210,000 per month, and the lease term from October 31, 2016 to October 30, 2019.

Since the above lease contract, E has occupied and used the first floor of the instant building, and the Defendant has occupied and used the second floor of the instant building.

B. On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.,” and, in the case of Plaintiff (Appointed Party), a special agreement was concluded that the Plaintiff, etc. purchased one-half shares of the instant building from D and F on December 22, 2017, to pay KRW 2.95 million out of the lessee’s deposit balance to E, and the remainder to pay KRW 1 million in the event the Defendant, a lessee, was not able to pay the second floor.

C. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff et al. completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building.

E, the lessee of the instant building, died.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion E has a right of lease based on a lease agreement with D, the former owner of the instant building. However, the agreement between the Defendant and E on the use and profit-making of the instant building claimed by the Defendant is only an internal relationship between the Defendant and E, and it did not consent to the Defendant’s use and profit-making based on the internal relationship as above, the Defendant occupied the instant building without

Even if D's consent was obtained, E's right to use and benefit was terminated due to the delinquency in rent from August 2017, and thus, E's right to benefit from use based on E's right to benefit was extinguished.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff et al. and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession of the building.

B. The defendant.