1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) based on sale, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on trust in the new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) on the same day.

B. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant leased the store of this case from Yuri Co., Ltd. to the date of the closing of argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The ownership of real estate under the Defendant’s alleged trust belongs to the trustee domestically and externally.

The Plaintiff, a truster, is not the owner of the store of this case, and is not eligible to file a claim for extradition.

B. In a lawsuit for performance of judgment, only the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she has the right to demand performance is qualified as a party, and the claim is dismissed if not recognized as a result of the trial.

As long as the plaintiff alleged that he/she has the right to seek the delivery of the store of this case, the standing is recognized.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Claims as to the cause of the claim and judgment

A. Article 10(1) of the trust agreement entered into between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the new bank provides that “The truster may continue to possess and use the trusted real estate, and substantially preserve and manage the trusted real estate.”

The Plaintiff may seek the delivery of the store of this case against the Defendant, who is an unauthorized occupant, as an act of preservation or management under the above provisions.

B. Even in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the term “Preservation or Management Act” is based on a trust agreement with a new bank, and thus, cannot be exercised against the Defendant, who is not the other party to the contract.

The plaintiff's assertion is justified.