1. The defendant shall deliver the real estate indicated in the attached Form to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) who are the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”) filed a lawsuit for the delivery of a building against D, E, F, G, etc., which possessed the instant real estate, and obtained a favorable judgment on April 8, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant building delivery judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Evidence No. 1, the whole purport of pleading

B. On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff et al. received an original copy of the execution clause from the Ulsan District Court clerk to enforce the instant building delivery judgment against E et al.

On June 03, 2015, an enforcement officer tried to deliver real estate to E on the basis of the instant building delivery ruling, but the Defendant was unable to execute the execution on the ground that “the possession relationship of the object of execution is different” when he occupies the instant real estate.

Evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Meanwhile, on October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against H to seek confirmation that H’s lien does not exist with respect to the instant real estate, and won the case in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013Na3798). The said appellate court judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

Certificate of No. 2

D. The Plaintiff et al. obtained a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of real estate by Ulsan District Court 2015Kadan3841 against the Defendant and completed the enforcement on January 19, 2016.

A evidence of heading 5

E. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to grant the execution clause of the instant judgment to the Plaintiff by a junior administrative officer, etc. of the Ulsan District Court for compulsory execution against the Defendant. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff et al. modified the purport of the claim as stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition.

The court's obvious fact that there has been no dispute with the court, the fact that there has been a significant fact in this court, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 and Eul evidence 2.