1. The Defendant shall indicate to the Plaintiff the annexed drawing among the daily necessities retail stores of the building indicated in the annexed real estate, 249.6 square meters.

1. Following the facts of recognition may be recognized by adding together the purpose of the entire pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

Attached Form

On November 22, 1999, registration of ownership preservation has been completed with respect to one half of the shares in C and D as to the indicated buildings of real estate.

B. C’s death on March 30, 2002, registration of inheritance was completed with respect to two-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six shares in D on January 19, 204.

C. On March 27, 2006, the Plaintiff’s share above 2/26 of H in the same year

2. 10. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer by reason of sale.

In addition, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 9, 2003 with respect to the share of 3/26 D/D on January 23, 2013, the share of 2/26 of E, F, and G, based on an inherited property division consultation, thereby completing the registration of ownership transfer on September 9, 201.

1/2 of all shares in subsection C have been owned.

E. On April 3, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 70,00,00, monthly rent of KRW 3,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period of KRW 3,00,00 (excluding value-added tax) as to the portion of (a) section 125 square meters inboard connected with each point in sequence, among the daily necessities retail stores of buildings indicated in the attached Table 249.6 square meters, among the daily necessities retail stores of buildings indicated in the attached Table 249.6 square meters, and occupied and used the instant building.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, although the co-owner's lease of co-owned property to another person is determined by a majority of co-owner's share as an act of management of co-owned property, D's lease of the building of this case alone to the defendant is null and void against the plaintiff, who is the owner of the remaining share of the building of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff seeking preservation of co-owned property.

(b).