A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant, in sequence, connects the Plaintiff with each point of subparagraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 on land of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 693m3m2 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant is

B) A deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000 was determined and leased. Around April 2004, the Plaintiff agreed with the Plaintiff to terminate the said lease contract, and the Plaintiff occupied and used without monthly rent, but at the Defendant’s request for delivery, the Plaintiff agreed to promptly deliver the instant building (However, the deposit of KRW 20,000,000 was returned to the delivery and redemption of the instant building).

2) Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not comply with the Defendant’s request for delivery, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the surrender of building name, etc. under this court’s 2006Kadan2502.

The court of the first instance sentenced the defendant's claim dismissal on October 25, 2006. However, the defendant's objection and appealed as 2006Na8348 of this court. The appellate court sentenced the defendant to the defendant's partial winning judgment that "the defendant delivers the building of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant will pay the amount calculated at the rate of 300,000 won per month from April 15, 2006 to the completion of delivery of the building." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

3) The plaintiff delivered the building of this case to the defendant around December 15, 2007, but the defendant asserted that the building of this case was delivered to the defendant on or around December 2007 through compulsory execution, but without any evidence to acknowledge the above assertion that the plaintiff promptly started an illegal possession and possessed it up to the present day. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. Nevertheless, the defendant did not receive a refund of the remaining security deposit of 14 million won (=20 million won - (300,000 won x 20 months) from the defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant is based on the statement under subparagraph 6-1 of the executory exemplification of the judgment of 2006Na8348 delivered on March 29, 2007.