1. The defendant shall deliver the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party B.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 11, 1987, the net C purchased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 25, 200, but died on December 25, 200. As to the instant building on June 23, 2001, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of co-inheritors of the deceased C was completed on the ground of “the inheritance by consultation or division.”

(Share of co-owners: D, E, F, G, H, Selection B, I 5/17 shares, I 5/17 shares).

A. Of the co-owners described in the above paragraph (a), the registration of transfer was completed in the J name on the ground of “sale by compulsory auction” on December 13, 2012 with respect to E-2/17 shares among the co-owners.

C. The building of this case is currently owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party B. The shares of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) are 9/17 and the shares of the Appointed B are 8/17.

The defendant is above A.

One of the co-owners listed in subsection E is the son E, and the building of this case is currently occupied.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party B, who is a co-owner of the building of this case and seeks to keep the building of this case as a co-owner,

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is justified since the defendant himself/herself is a legitimate holder of possession and spent necessary and beneficial expenses for the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge each of the above arguments, the defendant's argument

(The Defendant did not specify the substance of possessory right holder. However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) holds 2/17 shares in the instant building.