1. The defendant shall deliver each of the goods listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

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

3...

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 7, evidence 1 to 2, and evidence 8-3, evidence 1 to 12, evidence 1, 2, evidence 13-1, evidence 14-1, evidence 18, evidence 18, evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. (1) The Plaintiff is the subject of sale or lease of 220 households, a welfare house for the aged, which is a welfare house for the aged, as prescribed by Article 32(1)3 of the Welfare of Older Persons Act, located in the area of 517 Donnam-si, Hanam-si (hereinafter “instant welfare house for the aged”), and its operator.

At present, 133 households among 220 households are sold in lots, and 7 households are leased.

(2) The defendant is the council of occupants' representatives comprised of occupants of the welfare house of this case.

B. (1) The sales price of the welfare house of this case was set based on the site price and building price, and Article 1 of the sales contract of this case provides that "the plaintiff and the buyer shall enter into an operation contract for the operation of welfare house for the aged pursuant to the Welfare of the Aged Act".

(2) Meanwhile, Article 1(2) of the Sales Contract (Evidence 7) signed by the Plaintiff with the buyer on August 11, 2008 states that “The sales price is an amount not included in the incidental welfare facilities of the welfare house of this case” and the sales contract (Evidence 4) entered into with the buyer on May 11, 2012 is deleted.

C. (1) On July 22, 2010, pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Welfare of the Aged Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the establishment of residential welfare facilities for the aged in the instant case, including “type of operation: type of operation”, “scheduled commencement date of business: August 2010” and “440 persons: Admission capacity”, and received a report on the establishment of residential welfare facilities for the aged in the instant case on August 2, 2010.

(2) The Plaintiff around that time.