1. The Defendant received KRW 70,000,000 from Nonparty C, and simultaneously entered the indication of the attached real estate in the Plaintiff.

1. Under the following facts, the following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute each other; (b) evidence Nos. 2 and 3; (c) evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 5-1 through 4; (d) evidence No. 6; (e) evidence Nos. 3 through 7; and (e) evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2.

Multi-household houses entered in the indication of attached real estate, including the instant building, have been completed around April 1997 by setting the name of the owner as "D, E, and C".

B. On March 11, 2009, the Defendant entered into an agreement to lease the instant building from C by April 14, 2010, and paid deposit KRW 70 million to C in accordance with the said agreement.

C. 15 persons, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the said building owner for the verification of ownership, etc. on the grounds that they purchased multi-household houses indicated in the separate sheet for each unit, and in the above case, the court rendered a judgment that the F, delegated by the said building owner, sold the instant building to G around March 20, 206 on behalf of the said building owner, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from G in accordance with the agreement on intermediate omission registration around April 19, 2007, on the ground that the building owner is obligated to change the name of the building owner to 15 persons, including the Plaintiff, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 1, 2013.

(The first instance court: this Court 2010Gahap14194, the appellate court: Seoul High Court 2012Na31569, the Supreme Court 2013Da26340). D.

On July 23, 2013, 15 members, including the Plaintiff, completed the procedure for change of the name of the owner according to the above judgment.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As to the claim for the delivery of a building in accordance with the claim for the exclusion of disturbance as the owner, the plaintiff purchased the building in this case from the owner of the building in this case and completed the procedure for the change of ownership, but the defendant occupied the building in this case, thereby obstructing the exercise of rights as the owner.