1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

1. Determination as to the claim for land transfer

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may purchase each of the instant real estate in the auction procedure for each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and pay the price, and recognize the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate on March 20, 2013. The fact that the Defendant currently occupies each of the instant real estate is not a dispute between the parties, barring special circumstances, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant

B. The defendant's defense 1) The defendant has a lien on each of the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant has a right to lawfully possess each of the real estate of this case. In full view of the entries and images of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8 of this case, the defendant's defense of this case was proved to have a right to legally possess each of the real estate of this case. In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant's earth and sand construction and its ground structure construction (hereinafter "the construction of this case").

A) It is recognized that construction work on each of the instant real estate was carried out on the ground by being awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 239 million (excluding value-added tax). However, in the real estate auction procedure, where, after the completion of the entry registration of the decision to commence the auction on the real estate owned by the debtor and the seizure took effect, the debtor acquired the right of retention by transferring possession to the creditor of the construction cost regarding the said real estate, such transfer of possession goes against the prohibition of disposition of seizure under Articles 92(1) and 83(4) of the Civil Execution Act, since it constitutes a disposition likely to reduce exchange values of the object, and thus, the possessor cannot oppose the buyer of the auction procedure on the said real estate on the ground of the above lien (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22688 Decided August 19, 2005).