1. The defendant shall order the plaintiff to write down the second floor house of 81.12 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list.

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

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by D during the auction procedure for the sale of real estate C in this court and paid the price in full, and the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building on July 3, 2014 was completed on or before July 3, 2014. The Defendant is not in dispute between the parties, or that the Defendant occupied the two-story housing of 81.12 square meters (hereinafter “col part”) among the instant buildings, and that the facts of the possession of the two-story housing of this case do not conflict between the parties, or that of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6-2, 6-7, 1-1, 2-2, and 1-2 of the evidence No.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to clarify the second floor housing of 81.12 square meters, which is the part occupied by the Defendant, among the instant building.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion is a lessee who has an opposing power after completing the move-in report on June 10, 201, and resides in the premises of the instant building for a period of four years from the first patrolman D on June 201, as the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 8,00,00. As such, the Defendant has a legitimate authority to possess the premises of the instant building.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant is a legitimate lessee in relation to the dispute part, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the right of lease defense against the defendant cannot be accepted.

① The Defendant is the former owner of the instant building D’s seat.

(2) The defendant stated that the name of this court at the reply and the date of pleading is not D before the fact-finding reply by the Seogu Office of Daegu is erroneous.