2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

A. On July 9, 2013, with respect to the building originally registered as Defendant C’s ownership (hereinafter “instant house”), the ownership transfer registration based on E trading was completed on July 9, 2013, and on March 3, 2014, on March 3, 2014.

B. The Defendants occupy the instant housing.

C. Defendant B is the mother of E, the former owner of the instant housing, Defendant C, and Defendant D, the former owner of the instant housing.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) Determination on the Defendants’ assertion (1) around 2007, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C and resided in the instant house. On July 5, 2013, between E and E, the lease agreement was concluded by setting the lease deposit of KRW 15 million and the lease term of KRW 20,000,000 among the instant housing. The said lease agreement expired on July 10, 2017 by implied renewal, and the domestic contract term expired.

Even if it is claimed that there is no obligation to deliver the above house before the deposit is returned.

In light of the fact that Defendant B had been residing in the house of this case after the moving-in report on August 10, 2007, Defendant B is recognized as having been living in the house of this case until now, but in view of whether Defendant B is the genuine lessee, there is no evidence to prove that the testimony of the witness E is difficult to believe and otherwise.

Rather, in light of the personal relationship between the Defendants and E, the above lease agreement was made between individuals without going through a licensed real estate agent, and the financial data that Defendant B paid the lease deposit is not submitted.