1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

In full view of the facts without dispute over the cause of the claim, and the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap 2 and 3, the plaintiff was donated on October 15, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 19, 2007. However, it is recognized that the defendant currently occupies 103 units while operating a real estate brokerage office.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has a duty to deliver 103 to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on ownership unless there are special circumstances such as having a legitimate right to possess 103.

The judgment on the defendant's defense is a defense that the defendant has the right to possess 103 as the defendant has properly sub-leaseed from the lessee of 103 to the lessee of 103, and thus, the plaintiff leased 103 units to C on November 15, 2013 as the real estate intermediary business operator. After that, the defendant is deemed to have leased 103 units to C on November 15, 2013. Since Article 629 (1) of the Civil Act provides that the lessee shall not sub-lease the leased items without the lessor's consent, the defendant cannot oppose the above sub-lease contract unless there are special circumstances that the plaintiff consented to the sub-lease.

In addition, the fact that the entire part of the defendant is sub-lease of the "sub-lease of the building" under Article 632 of the Civil Code shall be determined in accordance with the transaction concept.

Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.