1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 21 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff borrowed from Eul the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") from March 20, 2016 to March 20, 2021, from March 20, 2021, and the defendant is found to possess the building of this case (the defendant has a defense to the effect that the contract for the lease of real estate of this case was prepared voluntarily by the plaintiff and is forged. However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 21, Eul evidence No. 21 and Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole oral argument, since the stamp image of Gap evidence No. 1 is recognized to be the fact of the principal, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the whole authenticity of evidence No. 1 is presumed to have been forged. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant concluded a verbal contract from C to borrow the instant building free of charge, and thereafter, agreed C to collect the instant building site from the Korea Forest Service and to donate the instant building site to C, thereby having the right to possess the instant building.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant borrowed the instant building from C without compensation only with the descriptions of the evidence of Nos. 1 to 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, even if C promised to donate the instant building and its site to the Defendant, the right to possess possession of the instant building is not generated solely from that promise, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.