1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 3, 6, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings);

A. Upon receipt of the decision to permit sale on September 26, 2016, the Defendant paid the sale price on October 27, 2016 in the procedure for the auction of the real estate rent C, which commenced with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

B. Since then, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff possessing the instant real estate, Gwangju District Court’s net support B, and the said court rendered a decision ordering the transfer of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant delivery order”) on January 25, 2017.

C. On February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an immediate appeal against the instant order for delivery, but the said court rendered a ruling to dismiss the said immediate appeal on July 24, 2017 in the case of Gwangju District Court 2017Ra68, which was the appellate court. The said ruling became final and conclusive thereafter.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 28, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D, the former owner of the instant real estate, from March 1, 201 to March 1, 201, occupied the instant real estate, and completed a move-in report on April 11, 201. As such, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate as a lessee who acquired opposing power under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and forced execution based on the extradition order of the instant real estate cannot be permitted.

B. In the event that the judgment to be dissatisfied only with the judgment is an executive title, the grounds that Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act applies mutatis mutandis, except as otherwise provided in Articles 58 and 59 of the same Act, and only the grounds that occurred after the conclusion of the judgment, may be asserted as the grounds for objection, pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act.

However, since the order of delivery of real estate is a judgment that can only be appealed, the reason that occurred prior to the establishment of the order of delivery of real estate is an immediate appeal.