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

3...

A. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant a successful bid price of KRW 125,90,000 as to the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) in the Changwon District Court B’s auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant building”) and paid the successful bid price on February 15, 2016.

B. The defendant occupies the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, 8, and Eul evidence No. 6 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On April 24, 2009, the Defendant’s defense and its determination (1) concluded a real estate lease agreement with C, the former owner of the instant building, with a lease deposit of KRW 100 million and a lease term of two years, and subsequently renewed the lease agreement.

Therefore, the defendant has the right of lease as to the building of this case, and the obligation to return the deposit and the obligation to deliver the building of this case are concurrently performed.

Even if the right of lease of the defendant is not recognized, since the interior works are executed in an amount equivalent to KRW 100 million after the conclusion of the contract, and office equipment such as office fixtures are installed and operated, the right of retention is held.

(2) We examine whether the Defendant has the right of lease by concluding a lease contract with C, the former owner of the instant building.

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the statement No. 6, the submission of financial transaction information to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of this court, the response result, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has the right to lease as to the building of this case only with the entries of No. 4 and No. 5, No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant.