1. The defendant

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annex;

B. As from March 28, 2014, the delivery of the said real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of real estate listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. From March 28, 2014, the Defendant has occupied and used the instant building from March 28, 2014 to the present date, and the amount equivalent to the rent for occupying and using the instant building is equivalent to KRW 2,310,000 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, and to pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 2,310,000 per month, which is the amount equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the instant building, from March 28, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

B. As to this, the defendant is an executor of the business of constructing and selling officetels buildings including the instant building. The plaintiff is a contractor, and the above business was not properly conducted due to the plaintiff's unreasonable design modification, and the plaintiff acquired ownership while purchasing the instant building. Considering these circumstances, the plaintiff's claim in this case should not be permitted as it violates the good faith principle.

In light of the above, even if the Defendant’s assertion on domestic affairs is recognized, such circumstance alone alone does not deem the Plaintiff’s claim of this case against the good faith principle.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. If so, each of the claims of the plaintiff in this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.