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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the grounds of sale on January 12, 2016.

(2) The Defendant is the possessor of the instant real estate who had completed the registration of transfer of ownership. (3) From October 2017 to October 2017, the Defendant is an occupant of the instant real estate residing without permission without filing a move-in report.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

B. According to the above facts of determination, according to a request for extradition based on the Plaintiff’s ownership, the owner of the instant real estate, the Defendant, the possessor of the instant real estate, has the duty to deliver the said real estate to the Plaintiff,

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is found to be “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” on October 29, 2017, and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff’s agent for KRW 50,000,000, and for a two-year period, and lawfully occupies the instant real estate as a lessee.

Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request because it is not an unauthorized occupant.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff granted the power of representation to D, etc. for the purpose of the lease of the instant real estate with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff granted the power of representation to D, etc. for the purpose of the lease of the instant real estate (such as an expression agency, etc.).

(1) According to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant was indicted for the fact that all of the lease deposit was remitted to D, not the Plaintiff, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the said D is currently subject to criminal trial on the ground that it acquired money in the name of the current lease deposit.

② Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are lease agreements between the Plaintiff and the former lessee of the instant real estate and E Co., Ltd.