1. Of the buildings listed in the attached list, the Defendant is in accordance with the direction of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 5 of the south of the first floor indicated in the attached list among the buildings indicated in the attached list.

The Plaintiff newly constructed a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) and completed registration of preservation of ownership on May 29, 2013, and the Defendant occupied the part indicated in paragraph (1) of the main text of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “the part occupied”), may be recognized in the absence of any dispute at the time of the party’s death or by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the entry in Gap evidence No. 1.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the possession of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant alleged that the plaintiff and D were residing in the building of this case under the premise that the right to collateral security established in the building of this case is cancelled, while the plaintiff and D were holding the claim of KRW 320 million against the plaintiff and D, the actual owner of the building of this case was D, and the defendant suggested that they will substitute the building of this case as a substitute for the building of this case, and they were residing in the building of this case with the permission of the plaintiff and D. Thus, according to the statement of No. 1-1 of evidence No. 1, the defendant was recognized as having the right to claim for the sale fee of KRW 20 million against the corporation of this case, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion only by the statement of such circumstance and evidence No. 1-2 to No. 4, No. 2-2, No. 3, and No. 4-2 of evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.