1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is the owner of a building listed in the attached sheet (hereinafter “instant inspection”) and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant inspection is possessed as of the date of the closing of argument after completing the move-in report to the instant inspection on August 8, 2016.

According to the above facts, the defendant occupied the inspection of this case and interferes with the plaintiff's ownership of the inspection of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the inspection of this case to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

A. (1) The main point of the claim is that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D, the father of C, the Plaintiff, before the instant temple was donated to the Plaintiff, setting the sales amount of KRW 40,000,000 as to the instant temple.

Accordingly, the Defendant received the approval for the use of the instant inspection and the written transfer of registration with respect to the instant inspection, with the purport that D shall pay D the down payment of KRW 5,000,000 on March 18, 2016, and the intermediate payment of KRW 5,000,000, respectively, on March 20, 2016, and that D shall designate D as the agent of C on the payment date of the intermediate payment, and that the Defendant approves D to use the instant inspection free of charge.

Therefore, the defendant has the right to possess the inspection of this case lawfully.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13 (including a Serial number), witness E's testimony, and witness D's testimony, before August 16, 2016, C, who was the sole owner of the instant temple, was in a situation where it is difficult for C to properly express his/her intention as to whether to sell the instant temple with a disability of class 1, and accordingly, C and D, the father of the Plaintiff, were in a substantial control of the instant temple, and D cannot manage the instant temple due to health reasons.