1. The defendant and the respondent shall deliver to the plaintiff each building listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff (applicant for acquisition; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) awarded a successful bid for each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) owned by A in the public sale procedure under the National Tax Collection Act, and acquired its ownership.

B. On July 15, 2015, the person filing an application for acquisition of the land B (hereinafter “instant land”) purchased 4,793 square meters of the land for a factory in Pakistan-si, where the said building is located, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 20, 2015.

C. On July 17, 2015, the recipient entered into a trust agreement with the Luxembourg Trust Co., Ltd. and the instant land, and on July 20, 2015, the trustee entered into the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust.

At present, each building of this case is occupied and used jointly by the defendant and the respondent.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, the possessor of each building of this case, and the respondent for acquisition (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant, etc.") are obligated to deliver each building to the plaintiff, the owner of each building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As the defendant et al. did not acquire legal superficies, etc. to occupy the land of this case in relation to each of the building of this case, the defendant et al. asserted that the building of this case should be removed at the request of the respondent, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

However, since the plaintiff did not acquire legal superficies, there is a situation to remove the building of this case at the request of the landowner of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's possession of the building of this case owned by the plaintiff cannot be justified. Thus, without examining whether the plaintiff's legal superficies has been acquired, the above assertion by the defendant, etc. is not necessary.