1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant D is one of the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list with two floors G heading 45.60 square meters, and Defendant E is the same.

Facts of recognition

The deceased is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), and the deceased died on July 27, 2008, and the attorney C was appointed as an administrator of inherited property of the deceased as Seoul Family Court 2012Ra1616.

From March 10, 2009, Defendant D occupies the second floor G (referring to the whole second floor) among the instant building; from April 7, 2008, Defendant E occupies the first floor H of the instant building; from April 7, 2008, the first floor of the instant building connected in sequence A, b, c, d, and Ga; from September 10, 2015, the Defendant F occupies the first floor of the instant building; and from September 10, 2015, the second floor underground I of the instant building connected in sequence B, c, d, and Ga, respectively.

The rent from July 2008 to July 2008 is KRW 270,000 per month.

[Reasons for Recognition]

(a) Defendant D: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 4 through 5, Eul's evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings;

(b) Defendant E: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. Defendant F: According to the above facts of recognition as to Defendant D and F of Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act by public notice, Defendant D and F are obliged to deliver each of the possession parts of the instant building to the Plaintiff, who is an administrator of inherited property of the instant building, as an administrator of inherited property.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each possession of Defendant D and F. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that it is the rent for Defendant D and F’s possession, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the above facts of recognition as to Defendant E, Defendant E is obligated to deliver the occupied part of the instant building to the Plaintiff, who is an administrator of inherited property of the instant building, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 270,000 per month from April 7, 2008 to the completion date of delivery of the said occupied part.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against defendant E is justified, and defendant D.