1. The Defendants jointly deliver to the Plaintiff the attached real estate indicated in the attached Form.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1 through 5, and Eul evidence No. 3-1 through 3, the plaintiff's husband D leased Hho (hereinafter "Hho") among Seongdong-gu Seoul E and F ground Gdong (hereinafter "the building in this case") to the plaintiff and resided in Hho on August 4, 2014. The plaintiff, around November 2014, after hearing the explanation of Jho-ho (hereinafter "I"), was issued by the defendants on November 6, 2014, and concluded a contract to purchase Eul from Jho-ho (hereinafter "I"), and paid the price for the dismissal of the appeal by the defendants on November 3, 2014. Meanwhile, D was delivered to the defendants on August 28, 2016, and it was determined that "Iho-ho 2, 2013-ho 36, 301, 306, 2016.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendants agreed to deliver H to D or the Plaintiff in the event that D or the Plaintiff is unable to acquire the ownership of subparagraph 1 through a sales contract, on the premise that there is no legal problem in acquiring the ownership of subparagraph 1 through a sales contract. However, since D or the Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of subparagraph 1 through a sales contract, the Defendants are obliged to deliver subparagraph 1 to the Plaintiff, such as the content of the agreement, unless there are special circumstances.

2. First of all, the Defendants’ assertion is invalid since the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the J is invalid, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek the delivery of Hho.