beta
Text
1. The defendant points out of the second floor of the real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff each point of the indication of the attached drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1.
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition shall be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, as stated in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2:
A. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the former owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”); (b) on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 10 million; (c) monthly renting KRW 350,000; and (d) from September 2, 2016 to September 1, 2018; (c) concluded a lease agreement with the term fixed date on September 5, 2016; and (d) completed the move-in report of the instant housing on September 6, 2016; and (d) occupied the instant housing by the period from September 6, 2016 to September 200.
B. Meanwhile, E purchased the instant house on August 9, 2018 in the public sale procedure under the National Tax Collection Act, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day to the Plaintiff on the same day.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above subparagraph D owned by himself to the plaintiff, the owner of the house of this case, unless he proves the lawful source of possessory right.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant's assertion 1) did not receive the distribution of the lease deposit even though he/she was requested to distribute as a small lessee having the right to preferential repayment in the public sale procedure under the National Tax Collection Act. Since the house of this case was sold in the public sale procedure under the National Tax Collection Act, it cannot be deemed that the right to lease of this case is extinguished. Thus, the defendant cannot deliver the house of this case before he/she was returned the deposit of KRW 10 million from the plaintiff. 2) In the auction procedure under the Civil Execution Act to determine that all the mortgages on the real estate sold are extinguished by sale (Articles 91(2) and 268 of the