1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the said apartment from another Mine Construction Industry Co., Ltd., the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”); (b) on a yearly basis, the lease contract has been renewed on a yearly basis since it leased the said apartment to KRW 150 million as a deposit for lease (hereinafter “personal lease deposit”); (c) on December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7.5 million as increased as a deposit for lease and late payment of KRW 51,780,00,000, and the relevant contract was renewed until November 17, 2017; and (d) according to the relevant lease contract, the transfer or sub-lease of the right to lease is prohibited in principle.

B. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, upon filing a marriage report on September 7, 2012, occupy and use the instant apartment after mixed possession. On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit, etc. (this court 2016dhap247) against the Plaintiff, and the lawsuit is pending, and on August 24, 2016, attached the Plaintiff’s lease deposit claim against the Southern Mine Construction Industry Co., Ltd. prior to the increase in the Plaintiff’s lease deposit claim against the Plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may bear the lease deposit that can be additionally raised after the expiration of the above lease agreement and the late payment charge due to the delay in payment, and thus does not want to continue the lease.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, the possessor of the apartment of this case, is obligated to deliver the above apartment to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on the right to lease of the above apartment unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's right to lease of the apartment of this case cannot be complied with the plaintiff's claim of this case before the expiration of the divorce lawsuit, since the right to lease of the apartment of this case is the defendant's unique property, since the defendant's burden of KRW 132 million, which reaches about 90% of the deposit 150 million of the lease deposit before the increase.

In the instant case, spam, etc.