1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the land and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by paying the purchase price in full on May 16, 2017.

However, the Defendant, among the instant real estate, did not deliver to the Plaintiff the title title E, F, G, H, I, J, and K (hereinafter “instant dispute”) and did not deliver to the Plaintiff, and delivered the instant dispute portion to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2017.

Therefore, from May 16, 2017 to July 1, 2017, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 52,880,00,00 and delay damages for the rent and management expenses, etc. incurred by the possession and use of the dispute in this case.

2. Determination

A. Possession of an article refers to the objective relationship that appears to be a factual control of a person under the generally accepted social norms. In order to be a de facto control, it is not necessarily required to refer to only physical and practical control over an article, but should be determined in conformity with the generally accepted social norms by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the article, the principal right relationship with another person, the possibility of control, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da58924 delivered on March 23, 1999, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24677 delivered on September 30, 2005, etc.) B.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements Nos. 3, 10, 11, and 3-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, the fact that the Defendant left the part of the instant dispute (specifically difficult to specify a room) without collecting the Defendant’s office household and fixtures, even after the Plaintiff received full payment of the purchase price, is recognized.

However, considering the above legal principles and the fact that the defendant received the purchase price from the plaintiff and transferred the key to the real estate of this case (in the case of an electronic locking device, the password) to the plaintiff, the above legal principles and the defendant were considered.