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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3-1.

1) On March 9, 2007, the defendant is called "real estate of this case" as stated in the separate sheet on March 9, 2007.

(2) On April 8, 2015, the head of the Changwon District Tax Office attached the instant real estate and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and filed a move-in report on resident registration on June 4, 2007.

3) The Korea Asset Management Corporation delegated by the Head of Changwon Tax Office for a public auction (management number B) on the instant real estate. On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in the public auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 2, 2017. 4) The Defendant currently occupies the instant real estate.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, the possessor of the instant real estate, is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On May 17, 2016, the Defendant asserted that a lease contract was concluded between C and the instant real estate, setting the lease deposit of KRW 18 million and monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000.

The Defendant, as a small lessee with the opposing power and the top priority repayment right stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act, demanded the distribution of KRW 18 million in the above public sale procedure, but received only KRW 9,567,602 from among them. As such, the Defendant has the right to possess the instant real estate until the remainder is returned.

B. It is difficult to recognize that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement as above with C solely based on the written evidence No. 1.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the fact that on May 17, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was made by the defendant C in the future, and on the other hand, the Central Saemaul Bank on February 18, 2014.