1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Among the instant lawsuits, buildings listed in the attached Table from March 10, 2018 to the attached Table.

1. As to this part of the facts admitted, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the claim for delivery is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Article 2(2)(b)(i) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. [1] The defendant asserts that since the building of this case does not directly or indirectly occupy the building of this case, the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition. Unlike those to be realistic possessor in the case of a claim for delivery on the ground of illegal possession, the other party is not restricted to direct possessor in the case of a claim for delivery pursuant to an agreement, and it is allowed to demand indirect possessor against the indirect possessor in the case of a claim for delivery. However, this does not apply where the delivery obligation cannot be performed by indirect possessor due to direct possession of another person. In this case, the non-performance of the delivery obligation is not merely an absolute and physical impossibility, but it is not possible for the creditor to expect the realization of the debtor's performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da22850, Jan. 24, 2003; 2000Da3199, Apr. 29, 1999).

However, this Court's significant facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 9 are considered as a whole.