1. The Defendants jointly pay 4,736,000 won to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff for sale as of July 10, 2014 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with Nonparty D on the grounds of sale as of May 2, 2016.

B. From March 24, 2015, the Defendants occupy the part of 101 on the first floor among the instant real estate.

【Partial Grounds for Recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 7, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As to the claim for delivery of a building, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant real estate, sought to transfer the possession portion of the instant real estate to the Defendants by excluding interference based on the ownership. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was no longer the owner of the instant real estate by completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on June 17, 2016, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this is without merit.

B. (i) As to the claim for unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff asserts that since February 1, 2015, the Defendants occupied the first floor, 101, and 102 of the instant real estate from February 1, 2015, while residing in the first floor and underground floor, and accordingly, the Defendants are obligated to pay unjust enrichment already incurred and the future unjust enrichment that may arise until they deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff

Belgium, the Defendants occupied the part of 101 of the first floor among the instant real estate from March 24, 2015, as seen earlier. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the excess period and occupation portion is insufficient to recognize it solely by the statement of the evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence.

In addition, the Plaintiff lost its ownership on the instant real estate on June 17, 2016.