A. In full view of the purport of the argument in each statement in subparagraphs 1 and 2, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased a building indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant building”) from Nonparty D and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 30, 2015; and (b) the Defendant, around February 27, 2003, purchased a building indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant building”) from Nonparty D with a size of 50 square meters underground (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”) connected each point of the attached drawing indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1 among the buildings indicated in the order around February 27, 2003; (c) leased the leased object of this case from Nonparty D with a lease deposit of KRW 3 million and monthly rent of KRW 2,80,000,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 303,300,000,0000,000) agreed to renew the lease period or renewed the instant building.

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

C. The defendant's assertion argues that although the non-party D decided to sell the building of this case to himself, selling it to the plaintiff is against good faith, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

However, this defendant's assertion is against the non-party D, and it is not an argument that can be asserted against the plaintiff as a new owner, and the defendant's argument is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.