1. The Defendant points out 1, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet list, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff’s registration of preservation of ownership on March 23, 2005, and the Defendant’s registration of preservation of ownership on real estate indicated in the attached list, and the fact that the Defendant runs real estate brokerage business with the trade name of “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” from among the 1st floor of the above real estate (hereinafter “instant store”).

According to the above facts, the defendant, the possessor of the instant store, is obligated to deliver the said store to the plaintiff, the owner, unless there is a special reason not to do so.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the tenant of the store in this case was transferred the right of lease from D.

However, there is no evidence to view that the Plaintiff consented to the transfer of the right of lease, and instead, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, D agreed to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2018, and received KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff on April 4, 2018.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim.