1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3.

1. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with E on real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), but notified E that the lease agreement will be terminated on February 2017, when E was in arrears.

The Plaintiff filed an application against E for a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of the possession of real estate (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Kadan100676), but it was not the real estate E but the Defendants resided in the real estate of this case, making it impossible to execute the provisional disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendants possessed the real estate of this case without any title in relation to the plaintiff who is the owner of the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with E and reside in the instant real estate, and Defendant A’s assertion that the instant real estate cannot be transferred until the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million is returned from E.

However, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with E even with the knowledge of the fact that the instant real estate is a rental house for which sub-lease or transfer of right of lease is impossible, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A has a legitimate title to possession in relation to the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff consented thereto. Thus, Defendant A’s possession of the instant real estate constitutes an illegal possession against the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be refused to request the extradition.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified.