1. The part concerning the claim for execution expenses in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants.

1. The following facts of recognition are not in dispute between the parties, or may be found in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the public sale of Class II neighborhood living facilities and the first floor and second floor of detached houses, respectively, of Class II neighborhood living facilities and the second floor of Class II neighborhood living facilities on the second floor of the 2nd unit of the land, 2,000 Seo-gu, Incheon, and two lots of land (hereinafter “instant building”) on the same year.

5. 17. He shall complete the registration of ownership transfer in his name.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant B made a move-in report on August 4, 201, and Defendant C made a move-in report on December 20, 2012 to Incheon Seo-gu Incheon.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants and D, the former owner of the instant building, as the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gadan29331, and the Defendants and D did not submit a written answer even after having received each lawful written complaint, the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”) to the effect that “the Defendants shall deliver the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (the instant building) to the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and Defendant D shall pay 6,515,900 won and 600,000 won per month from March 18, 2013 to March 18, 2013,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment on the instant surrender of the instant building as the executive title, and conducted the delivery execution of the instant building under the head office 2014 main office 640.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants, in collusion with D, refused to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff while illegally occupying the instant building. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff received the instant order of surrender, the Plaintiff obstructed its enforcement again, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to submit excessive costs.

B. Therefore, the Defendants jointly with D and (1) acquire the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant building from May 17, 2012.