건물인도
1. The Defendants deliver to each Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
1. The same year as of January 28, 1994 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) by the Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the claim
3. The fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on 14. Defendant C’s father and the fact that the Defendants together reside in the instant building is not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1.
According to the above facts, the defendants who possess the building of this case have the duty to deliver each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
2. On February 20, 1994, the building of this case, which was originally owned by the Defendant B, title trust to the Plaintiff, who is the birth partner. On February 20, 1994, the Plaintiff made a lease contract of KRW 35 million with the lessor and the spouse of the Defendant B as the lessee; on March 2, 2003, the Plaintiff drafted a lease contract of KRW 45 million with the lessor and the lessee as the above D; and even after the death of the above D, the Defendants were residing in the building of this case until now. Accordingly, the Defendants cannot deliver the building of this case until receiving KRW 45 million from the Plaintiff.
In this regard, the Defendants entered into a valid lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with a deposit of KRW 45 million.
There is no evidence to prove that the deposit was paid or that the deposit was paid, and there is a legitimate title of possession to oppose the plaintiff.
The above assertion by the Defendants based on the premise that a claim for the return of deposit exists is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.