The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached Table 1, and the grounds listed in the attached Table 2.

The Defendants, in the event of the Defendants’ obligation to deliver the land and take the ground objects, possess without title the land listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, and store the ground objects listed in the attached Table 2.

(A) Nos. 1 through 3. Therefore, the Defendants must deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff and take the ground on the ground in the attached Table No. 2 attached hereto.

Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion - Determination as to the benefit of protection of rights, and rejection of possession of the claim】 Defendant B and C, the former owner of the land of this case, have been confirmed by the judgment, such as the purport of this case, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not have the benefit of

Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is occupying F, which is not the land of this case, and is disputing the fact of land occupation.

However, according to the argument at the first day for pleading, which is the result of the examination of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (in particular, evidence Nos. 2 and 3), and at the result of the examination of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, E, the former owner of the instant land, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant B and C to seek delivery of the land (the instant land and the F, G), and taking on the ground, and the judgment of winning the lawsuit became final and conclusive (the final and conclusive on June 6, 2019), but on December 11, 2019, the Defendant Company was unable to execute the execution based on the above final and conclusive judgment on the ground that it is a joint possession of the instant land (hereinafter “the relation of possession of the instant land subject to execution”).

In this context, the defendants occupy the above land until the date of the closing of argument, and keep the attached list 2.

According to the conclusion, the defendants' assertion disputing the interests of protection of rights and possession is not reasonable, and all of the plaintiff's claims are accepted.