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

3.

A. The Plaintiff owns 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to D in KRW 100 million and KRW 5 million per month of rent (excluding value-added tax).

B. On February 15, 2019, D sublet the instant real estate to the Defendants without the Plaintiff’s consent, at KRW 100,000,000 per annum and KRW 5,00,000 per annum (excluding value-added tax).

The Defendants occupy the instant real estate from around that time.

C. On September 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D seeking delivery of the instant real estate.

(Seoul Southern District Court 2018Kadan246235). On January 16, 2020, the court rendered a ruling to the effect that "As the lease contract between the plaintiff and D was terminated on October 5, 2018 due to the delinquency in rent, D shall deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff," which became final and conclusive on February 20, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 6's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lessee could not sublet the leased object without the lessor’s consent (Article 629(1) of the Civil Act); D sublet the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent; and after the termination of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff, sublet the instant real estate to the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants possessing the instant real estate cannot oppose the Plaintiff’s request for extradition.

The Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.