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. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim (hereinafter “instant apartment”) obtained on June 7, 2018 from the sale of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by Nonparty E in the Suwon District Court’s FVoluntary Auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on “sale due to a voluntary auction” on the same day. The fact that the Defendants occupied and used the instant apartment can be acknowledged by the lack of dispute between the parties or according to the entry in the evidence No. 1.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants have the duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. As to the defendants' defense, around January 1, 1995, the defendants were legitimate lessees who leased and reside in the apartment of this case from the former owner of the apartment of this case and from the former husband G, the former husband of the defendant B, in the form of KRW 40,000,00, and therefore, they cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the lease deposit is refunded.

However, the Defendants did not submit any objective evidence to prove the fact of the lease agreement, including financial materials to acknowledge that they paid KRW 40,00,000 as the lease deposit to the lease agreement or E. In other words, the Defendants filed a lawsuit for divorce and consolation money, etc. against the former husband G with the Suwon District Court 2014Dhap5016, which is recognized as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, under the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the former husband G, namely, the claim for divorce and consolation money, etc.; (ii) the apartment of this case claimed that G paid KRW 45,00,000 for the existing lease deposit and purchased from E, and (iii) the Defendant asserted that the above claim was purchased in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016Reu22721) upon the rejection of the above claim in the first instance trial; and (iii) the amount of the deposit began to have been paid to E.