1. The defendant marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the buildings listed in the annexed list to the plaintiff (designated parties) and the appointed parties.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2013, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) entered into a lease agreement with D on April 1, 2013 with respect to the instant real estate E, F, and G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant store”) with KRW 55 million, monthly rent of KRW 1850,000,000, and the term of lease of KRW 1850,000 from April 1, 2013. On March 31, 2017, the instant store entered into a lease agreement with each of the following terms: (a) the lease agreement with each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant store”).

B. D has operated a restaurant under the trade name of “H” with the delivery of the instant store in accordance with each of the above lease agreements.

C. The defendant is the former spouse of D. D. D.

On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) who is the representative director C expressed his/her intent to refuse the renewal of the contract to the effect that “I would not renew the lease contract upon the expiration of March 31, 2018.”

E. On December 7, 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the appointed parties completed the registration of ownership transfer made on November 27, 2017 with respect to one-third share of each of the instant real estate on the grounds of sale.

F. The Defendant was involved in the operation of the above “H” and possessed the instant store up to now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number in the case of additional number), remarkable facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties, who are co-owners of the real estate of this case, can exercise the right to claim the delivery based on ownership against the defendant who currently occupies the present store of this case. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the shop of this case to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties.

나. 피고의 주장에 관한 판단 ⑴ 피고가 임차인이라는 주장 ㈎ 피고는 C과 임대차계약을 체결한 당사자는 D가 아니라 피고라는 취지로 주장한다....