1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner who was awarded a successful bid for real estate (hereinafter “instant building”) listed in the separate sheet in the Daegu District Court B real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 6, 2015.

On November 17, 2014, the Defendant occupied the instant building without any right with the domicile of its head office located in the instant building.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. In the instant auction procedure, Nonparty C and Nonparty D (the representative director of the Defendant) filed an application for a report on the right of lease and a demand for distribution as an individual qualification.

B. On November 23, 2016, in cases involving Daegu District Court Decision 2015Kadan42688, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution (hereinafter “instant extradition judgment”) that “D shall have the floor of 83.79 square meters from among the instant buildings, and C shall have the 10.35 square meters from the second floor.”

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for the execution of the extradition judgment of the instant case (Tgu District Court 2016No3852), and the enforcement officer commenced the extradition execution on December 22, 2016, but did not prepare a non-delivery protocol and implement the extradition execution on the ground that the postal items, which the Defendant had in the instant building, were found to have been in possession and were different.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection (Tgu District Court E) with respect to the enforcement of the building of this case on September 20, 2017, “The enforcement officer will enforce the delivery execution of the building of this case upon the delegation of the Plaintiff based on the instant extradition judgment.”

E. On December 19, 2017, enforcement officers conducted the execution of the extradition judgment of this case pursuant to the above decision, and transferred possession of the building of this case to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, currently the Plaintiff directly occupies the building of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff occupied the building of this case as of the date of closing argument of this case, and the defendant possessed the building of this case.