1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B and C shall jointly deliver the first real estate listed in the separate sheet, as well as the foregoing from June 24, 2015.

1. Judgment by Defendant B, C, and F-free holding, and the indication of the claim under Article 208(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act: as shown in the grounds for the claim in the attached Form;

However, Defendant F claimed damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of full payment. However, since the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was amended to the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015, the excess portion is dismissed.

2. Defendant D and E

A. The plaintiff's assertion by the parties is as shown in the annexed sheet.

On December 5, 2014, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for delivery and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, since the Defendant leased the instant real estate G No. 802 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by setting the lease period from December 5, 2014 to December 4, 2016, on or around December 5, 2014, by setting the lease period of KRW 200,000 per month.

(b) Determination 1) No dispute exists between the parties, or evidence A(including the serial number) Nos. 1 to 3

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, a career construction company newly constructed the instant real estate on January 3, 2014, which was entrusted to an international trust company on or around the 24th of the same month, and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the instant real estate was purchased from an international trust company, the owner of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on or around June 24, 2015. However, the Defendant, considering the assertion itself, concluded a lease agreement.

On December 5, 2014 (or January 13, 2015), the career construction company is not the owner of the real estate of this case, and there is no evidence that the career construction company has paid the lease deposit.

Thus, the lease contract asserted by the defendant is not a lease contract concluded with the legitimate owner, and it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff as the lease deposit is not paid.

3. The Defendants shall, in the absence of special circumstances.