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

3...

A. On October 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on the following grounds: (a) received a decision of permission for sale from the Seoul Central District Court D on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) paid the sales price in full.

B. On December 7, 2015, the Defendant reported the lien by asserting that he/she had a claim for construction price against the former owner E in the above auction court, and currently occupies the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purpose of the entire pleading

2. According to the facts of the defendant's acceptance of the duty of delivery, the defendant who interferes with the plaintiffs' exercise of ownership is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs who seek the exclusion of ownership.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified.