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

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 15, 2011, B entered into a contract on construction works with Nonparty C on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On July 24, 2012, B entered into a registration of ownership preservation on the instant real estate.

B. Since then, Nonparty International Trust Co., Ltd. received the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate from Nonparty International Trust Co., Ltd. on August 16, 2012, and the Plaintiff received the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate from the International Trust Co., Ltd. on May 19, 2014 due to sale as of March 18, 2014.

C. As the instant building could not be paid the construction cost upon completion, the said C concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant under the name of the owner B on February 22, 2013, setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million with respect to the instant real estate and the term of lease from February 22, 2013 to February 22, 2015.

Since the Defendant paid the lease deposit to C, and after receiving the instant real estate from C, the Defendant continued to reside in and use the instant real estate after completing the move-in report on April 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant did not enter into a lease agreement with the International Trust Co., Ltd., the owner of the instant real estate at the time of February 22, 2013, but entered into a lease agreement with C that claimed a lien with the consent of the former owner, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff who exercises the right to claim a exclusion of interference based on ownership.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant had continuously occupied the instant real estate that had undergone a completion inspection on July 19, 2012 by the construction business operator C while exercising the right of retention, and the Defendant who concluded a lease contract.