1. Defendant B shall deliver to the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The plaintiff's bankrupt corporation.

1. Claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deeming confessions: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. A claim filed against the bankruptcy trustee of the future savings bank against the defendant bankrupt;

A. According to the facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership on October 10, 2007 as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the building of this case") owned by defendant Eul, and completed the principal registration on October 26, 2017, and the future savings bank (Bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in the Future Savings Bank, Inc.) completed the registration of the creation of chonsegwon on May 10, 2007.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the right to claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership is an exercise of the right to claim for removal of interference, and the plaintiff seeks to transfer the building of this case to the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in future Savings Bank, Inc., the defendant bankrupt company, and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in future Savings Bank,

In light of the fact that the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to lease on a deposit basis, the right to lease on a deposit basis, and the delivery of the object is not a requirement for establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis, even if the parties primarily set up a right to lease on a deposit basis for the purpose of securing the right to lease on a deposit basis and do not deliver the object at the same time, the right to lease on a deposit basis cannot be denied unless the latter completely excludes the use and profit-making of the object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da18508, Feb. 10, 1995).