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

A. The Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 1974 with respect to the 51.32 square meters between the wooden flag and the pent roof 368.67 square meters on the ground of 2185 square meters in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 368.67 square meters on the ground of the wooden flag and the pent roof, which are affiliated buildings, and 20.37 square meters in a wooden flag and the pent roof, which are affiliated buildings (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff A donated the instant building from the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 6, 1990.

B. G limited liability company filed an application for provisional attachment of the instant building on January 6, 2017 with the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan814212 with the monetary claim of KRW 61,06,121 against Plaintiff A as the claim amount.

Since then, the above provisional seizure was implemented as a provisional seizure, and the compulsory auction was commenced as H of this court on February 1, 2017, and the defendant paid the successful bid price in the above compulsory auction procedure and acquired the ownership of the building of this case.

C. On March 21, 2018, the Defendant filed an order for the delivery of real estate against the Plaintiff A to the said court E against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant order for delivery of each real estate”), which was issued on March 21, 2018, and the said order became final and conclusive on March 31, 2018 by failing to file an appeal against the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs asserts that compulsory execution based on each order of delivery of the instant case should be denied on the following grounds.

① At the time of each order for delivery of this case, Plaintiff A did not occupy the building of this case.

Although the court examined each extradition order of this case, it did not undergo such procedures in spite of having examined the possessor pursuant to Article 136(4) of the Civil Execution Act, and each request for extradition order of this case is the interest in the protection of rights.