1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).

B. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant registered the instant telecom with the trade name “Cel” where the location of the instant telecom, and from that time, he/she occupied the instant telecom and runs the lodging business (norries) while occupying the instant telecom.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a lease agreement with D, the Defendant’s words, and the lease agreement was terminated on June 1, 2013.

Nevertheless, the defendant occupies and uses the building of this case without a legitimate title and interferes with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership.

Meanwhile, since the lease contract (No. 1) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is merely a multilateral contract that the Plaintiff prepared to reduce taxes, the Defendant is not a party to a contract that leases the instant motherel, but also if D deducts the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the Plaintiff should pay to the Plaintiff, there is no lease deposit that the Plaintiff should return to D.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant telecom to the Plaintiff and pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 5,400,000 per month from June 1, 201 to the completion date of delivery of the instant telecom.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff leased the instant Moel and paid KRW 250,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and not only acquired the contractor’s status for telephone and Internet, etc. necessary for the operation of the instant Moel, but also completed the business registration under the name of the Defendant.

As such, the defendant is a contracting party who entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff on the Maurel of this case, and the term of such lease contract.