1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B points out each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Form I.

The Defendants asserted that the part of the instant lawsuit against Defendant E, B, and C among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) against which the Plaintiff sought the delivery of the Defendants’ occupied portion among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) constitutes double litigation, since the J, which concluded a security trust contract with the Plaintiff, has already filed a claim against Defendant E, B, and C in the Seoul Central District Court 2018Gahap53176 case (hereinafter “related case”).

However, even according to the defendants' assertion, according to the plaintiff (the plaintiff) of the case related to the lawsuit of this case and the statement of Gap evidence No. 9, the J may recognize the fact that the part concerning the request for extradition was withdrawn on April 2, 2020 on the date of pleading of the open-related case. Thus, the above defense is without merit.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 8 (including virtual numbers) as to the main text of the lawsuit, the plaintiff entered into a trust agreement with J on September 7, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 9, 2015; Defendant B entered into the registration of ownership transfer on September 1, 2015; Defendant B entered into the list Nos. 31.7892 square meters inside the ship connecting each point of the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1; Defendant C entered the list Nos. 75.3020 square meters among the instant buildings; Defendant C entered the list Nos. 97, 10, 11, 12, and 9 in order that each part of the attached Table No. 1, 31.7, 97, 197, 2, 197, 31, 297, 2, 17, 37.1, 9.