(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From January 18, 2016, the above-mentioned A

(b).

A. A. Around February 25, 2008, Nonparty C leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant as KRW 6 million per annum and the period from February 25, 2008.

B. The above lease agreement terminated on February 25, 2013, but it was implicitly renewed on the grounds that both parties did not raise any objection, and the Defendant paid KRW 7 million each on the rent in 2014 and 2015.

C. On November 2, 2015, C sent a content-certified mail stating that it would refuse to renew the lease agreement to the Defendant, and around that time, C reached the Defendant. As of the closing date of the argument in the instant case, C occupies each of the instant real estate.

On the other hand, on January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each real estate of this case.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2, and 3-1-2, testimony of witness C, purport of whole pleadings】

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the possessor of each of the instant real estate, is obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff seeking the exclusion of interference based on ownership, and to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the rent in proportion to KRW 580,000 per month that the Plaintiff seeks from January 18, 2016, the date of acquiring the Plaintiff’s ownership, to the date of completing delivery of each of the instant real estate.

[When converting the difference between U.S. C and the Defendant into a monthly unit, it is apparent that the difference would be 583,333 won per month (i.e., annual rent 7,00,000, 12 months, and less than won). B.

As to this, the Defendant agreed on February 25, 2013 when the term of the lease agreement expires with Nonparty C to extend the term to February 25, 2018, the Defendant raised a defense to the effect that it is impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, even if the Defendant assumed that it reached such agreement with Nonparty C, it shall be assumed that the Defendant reached such agreement with Nonparty C.