1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list.

2. The Defendants jointly do so.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 9, 2013, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed due to the request for a provisional seizure registration in the name of the owner company G, a company G, the owner of building on September 9, 2013 with respect to the F (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On September 26, 2013, the creditors of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant auction”) commenced a compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) with respect to the instant building, and on the same day, the registration of the said decision on commencement of auction was completed.

C. On October 22, 2013, Defendant E submitted a lien report stating that Defendant E exercises a lien on the instant building with the claim for construction cost of KRW 1,300,000,000, based on the instant protocol for the conciliation of construction cost under Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Gahap1974, Seoul Southern District Court, as the preserved right, at the instant auction court.

On May 7, 2015, Defendant B, C, and D submitted to the auction court of this case a lien report stating that Defendant B, C, and D are exercising a lien on the building of this case by making the instant claim for construction cost and subcontract construction cost based on the payment order finalized in the payment order finalized by the Namyang-si court of 2015 tea 1382 as the preserved right.

E. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) received a successful bid for real estate listed in the attached Table 1’s real estate list among the instant buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) paid the sales price; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 12, 2015.

F. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the confirmation of existence of the right of retention (hereinafter “instant lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the right of retention”). On August 11, 2016, the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, stating that the Defendants did not have a right of retention on the instant real estate on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendants occupied the instant real estate prior to the registration of the commencement of the instant auction order, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendants occupied the instant real estate prior to the registration thereof.