1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and KRW 3,606,875.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The change in ownership C lends construction costs to D, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), and simultaneously completes the registration of provisional disposition on June 15, 2012 by filing an application for provisional disposition on the ground that the instant building was relocated under the pretext of accord and satisfaction with the loan on January 26, 2010.

Since then, on May 31, 2013, C filed a lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer against D and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of C on June 5, 2014 based on the winning judgment.

After that, on September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the building on the ground of sale.

B. On October 15, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D, the former owner of the instant building, with a deposit of KRW 10,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); on November 8, 2012, the Defendant filed a move-in report on the resident registration of the instant real estate and received a fixed date simultaneously with the move-in report on the said real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant occupies the building of this case without any cause, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent and causing damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that the delivery of the building of this case and the return of the unjust enrichment are sought based on ownership.

As to this, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with D, who is the former owner of the instant building, and acquired opposing power by concluding a moving-in report for resident registration. Since the effect of the contract is not effective to the Plaintiff, he claims that he possesses the instant building as a legitimate cause, and at the same time, claims the return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff as a counterclaim.

3. Determination A.