1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) An annexed list from May 6, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff awarded a successful bid for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) in the procedure for the compulsory auction by Suwon District Court Sejong District Court, and acquired the remainder of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “310”), and on April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid in full and acquired the ownership of each of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “311”).

B. The Defendant, as the former owner of each of the instant real estate, has acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate and continues to possess each of the instant real estate without title until now.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the request for extradition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant real estate.

B. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim for damages (i.e., determination on the claim for damages), the Defendant’s continued possession of each of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff without title constitutes a tort that infringes on the Plaintiff’s ownership. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the rent for each of the instant real estate that the Plaintiff suffered due to the failure to use

Furthermore, according to the result of the appraisal of rent for each real estate of this case, the amount equivalent to the monthly rent for each of the real estate of this case can be recognized as constituting 134,00 each, and the statement of evidence Nos. 3, 12, and 14 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant calculated by the ratio of KRW 134,00 per month from May 6, 2015 to the completion date of delivery under subparagraph 310, and the damages calculated by the Plaintiff’s ownership under subparagraph 311 from April 8, 2015 to the completion date of delivery under subparagraph 3111.