1. The Defendants shall withdraw from the building indicated in the attached list.

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

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Jung-gu Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Da42783, Dec. 26, 201; the plaintiff is the owner of the building of this case, and there is a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the building of this case") on the land of this case. The building of this case is owned by Eul, and the building of this case is transferred to F on September 28, 2011; the building of this case is transferred to Gu. The building of this case after the death of the F, G was inherited by a division of consultation and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 26, 2014; the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Eul, the appellate court, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Na8514, "G, upon delivery of the building of this case to the plaintiff," and the building of this case became final.

Therefore, since G is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, the Defendants, who were authorized by G to use the instant building from H, who leased the instant building, cannot oppose the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, and thus, are obliged to withdraw from the instant building.

2. The Defendants’ assertion on the assertion by the Defendants asserted that the lease deposit cannot be removed from the instant building without receiving the lease deposit from G. Therefore, the Defendants, who are merely the persons who obtained the right to use from the lessee of the instant building, cannot refuse to withdraw from the instant building on the ground that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, is the owner of the instant land, and therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.