1. Defendant C: The Plaintiff

A. The “opportune share” in the last paragraph of the attached list of the buildings listed in the attached list is “opportune.”

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to D and E.

B. The Plaintiff terminated the said lease agreement with the company, etc. in arrearing that it is a monthly rent under the lease agreement.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant building against the said company, etc. (Seoul Southern District Court 2018dan5328 building name map, etc.) and was rendered a favorable judgment.

On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory execution against the instant building on the title of execution, and the delivery execution was impossible on the ground that “the possession relationship of the subject matter of execution is different.” The Defendants’ possession is confirmed and the execution is impossible.”

E. Therefore, since the Defendants illegally occupy the instant building, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 85,000,00,000, the monthly rent from October 2, 2018, the date of delivery execution, to the date of delivery completion of the said building.

2. As to the plaintiff's above argument regarding the claim against the defendant company, the defendant company did not possess the building of this case. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 9, the plaintiff applied for compulsory execution against the building of this case on October 2, 2018, and the execution officer of the Seoul Southern District Court applied for compulsory execution against delivery of real estate on the building of this case on October 2, 2018, and the execution officer of the Seoul Southern District Court completed execution against the above building, and the execution officer prepared a real estate delivery impossible protocol, stating "the possession relationship of the object of execution is different." The defendants' possession

However, the above protocol does not provide the basis for recognizing the possession of the defendant company, and the defendant company was absent at the time of the execution of the above transfer, and the location of the defendant company is the case in the register of corporate register (No. 2).