1. Defendant (Appointed Party) D shall be the Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4.

1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet; Defendant D is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet; and Defendant D is liable to deliver the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, which is owned by the Plaintiff, in the order of each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 66, 7, 7, and 79.75 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the two real estate listed in the separate sheet.

As to this, Defendant D’s defense to the effect that, as the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to F and succeeded to F’s status as the tenant, Defendant D has the right to possess the portion indicated in the separate sheet (B) out of the instant real estate. However, the evidence submitted by Defendant D alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it ( even if there exists a transfer agreement between Defendant D and F, it is invalid against the Plaintiff as long as the Plaintiff, the lessor, did not consent to the said transfer agreement, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff consented to the said transfer agreement). Defendant D’s defense is rejected.

2. As to the claim against Defendant B, C, and Selection Party E, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B, C, and Selection Party B possess the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff with Defendant D, and thus, whether Defendant B, Defendant B, C, and Selection Party E possess the instant real estate is insufficient to accept the claim on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and according to the record of Party B’s evidence No. 3, Defendant B, and Selection Party E’s inspection of the transferred household regarding the instant real estate recorded in the separate sheet.