A. 1) The Plaintiff married with E and formed B and Defendant C, and Defendant D is the husband of Defendant C. 2) The Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the attached sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). From December 1, 201 to December 1, 2001, Defendant C, among the instant building, has been operating a beauty room in the aforementioned store while occupying and using the attached sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 50 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant store”) connected 1 in sequence.

3) On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant C a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff occupied and used the instant store on the condition that it does not have any property dispute with his/her family members, including B, but there was a property dispute between Defendant C and B, the Plaintiff terminated the said free loan for use, and deliver the instant store by August 20, 2016.”

B. Determination 1) In the case of Defendant C, the above fact of recognition reveals that Defendant C has a duty to deliver the above store to the Plaintiff, the owner of the above store, unless there are special circumstances, such as that Defendant C has a legitimate right to possess the above store. 2) In the case of Defendant D, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant D possessed the instant store, and sought to deliver the above store to Defendant D, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the possession of Defendant D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to Defendant D is without merit.

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s defense

A. At the time of July 31, 2001, Defendant C, the owner of the instant store, leased the said store by setting the lease deposit at KRW 30 million, and thereafter, leased the said store by setting the lease deposit at KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff, respectively.