A. On July 31, 2009, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty B and the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000, and the lease period from August 8, 2009 to August 8, 201.

B. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract to purchase the instant real estate from Nonparty B, and the same year.

4. 30. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

C. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content demanding the Defendant to deliver the instant real estate, as the Plaintiff did not intend to conclude a new lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case is a lease contract under the Civil Act, and the defendant is a lessee against the non-party B, who is the former owner of the real estate of this case, and there is no legitimate title to possess the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant has a duty to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances. (A) The defendant agreed to extend the contract term with the non-party B for two years around July 31, 2013. Since the plaintiff succeeded to the status of the non-party B's lessor, the lease contract term of this case continues to exist until July 31, 2015. Thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of each of the above claims, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

(B) In addition, the Defendant’s defense that the instant real estate cannot be transferred to the Plaintiff before the Plaintiff was returned KRW 50,000,000,000, is the case where the lease contract is terminated.