1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. According to the evidence No. 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 4, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Defendant, around August 10, 2015, after completing the move-in report on the instant apartment around August 10, 2015, resides in this area and occupies it until now, has no dispute between the parties, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant apartment, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that, since the defendant entered into a lease contract on the apartment of this case with the non-party AD Global Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the non-party company"), he cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for delivery until the non-party company redeems the deposit money.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the non-party company entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on April 27, 2015, setting the term of the lease as KRW 10 million, KRW 130 million, KRW 1300,000 per month, and KRW 24 months from May 15, 2015 to May 14, 2017, and without the Plaintiff’s consent, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant apartment as the deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

A lessee may not transfer his right or sub-lease the leased object without the consent of the lessor (Article 629(1) of the Civil Act). Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant obtained the consent of the lessor as to the conclusion of the lease contract between the non-party company and the lessee, the Defendant cannot set up against the Plaintiff, the owner of the apartment of this case, by the conclusion of the lease contract.

In other words, even if the above lease contract is valid between the defendant and the non-party company, the defendant is against the non-party company unless the plaintiff who is the lessor gives consent.