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

A. Each building stated in the Plaintiffs’ assertion in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant hotel”) owns 1/2 shares of each of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants occupy the instant hotel without any title.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant hotel to the Plaintiffs.

B. The Defendants asserted that they occupy the instant hotel in accordance with the agreement on a partnership business and the agreement on the transfer of shares with the Plaintiffs and the right of retention. As such, they have the right to possess the instant hotel.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The party’s relationship 1) The building indicated in the [Attachment 1] List (the indication of one unit building] owned by Nonparty E from August 2006 by Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively “instant building”).

A) On March 23, 2010, the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) was awarded a successful bid on March 23, 2010, and on April 28, 2010, 1/2 of which is the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”).

2) Defendant D had been working as the manager of the shopping center of the instant building from September 2006 to December 201, 2008, and Defendant C operated the third floor floor, the floor, the floor, the restaurant, and the eight-story wedding hall of the instant building from March 2008 to December 2010.

The Defendants entered into a partnership agreement on December 1, 2008, and from October 201, the Defendants occupied the instant hotel and run a lodging business.

3) From October 2009, Nonparty F, the representative of the Plaintiff Company, engaged in photographing business in the 8th wedding hall of the instant building from around October 2009. On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff Company acquired the shares in the instant building, and has been transferred to the Defendant C and has been operating until now. B. On June 9, 2008, Nonparty F, the representative of the Plaintiff Company, was the Daejeon District Court on the instant building, with respect to the acquisition of the instant building and the voluntary auction on June 9, 2008, the Plaintiff Company renounced the successful bid while participating in the bid, but failed to prepare the auction price, and was confiscated KRW 125 million in the auction deposit.

On the other hand, in the auction case above, this case.