1. The defendant shall order the plaintiff each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the second floor of the building stated in the attached list.

In light of no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 8, and 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff owns 2/3 shares of the building listed in the separate sheet (Provided, That the "Gradine Round" shall be corrected to "Gradine Round"; hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"). The plaintiff, around March 2015, allowed the defendant to occupy and use the attached building of this case about 39 square meters in size in the ship (10 meters in a household, 3.9 meters in length), and the fact that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to deliver the part possessed by the defendant by mail proving the content of the attached sheet as of December 28, 2017.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is a co-owner who owns a majority of shares in the building of this case and is entitled to demand the delivery of the part possessed by the Defendant for its management pursuant to Article 265 of the Civil Act (it can be deemed that the contract was terminated after the conclusion of a loan contract for use). The Defendant is obligated to deliver the part possessed by the Plaintiff

On this issue, the defendant's standing to file a claim for extradition alone by the plaintiff who is only a co-owner was insufficient;

② The Plaintiff alleged that “the Plaintiff, while permitting the Defendant to temporarily possess and use goods, did not deliver them to the Plaintiff upon request,” but the Plaintiff has the right to continue to possess and use the goods because it did not make such a promise.

③ At the time of the foreign exchange crisis of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), D voluntarily applied for auction of a F hotel under the name of the Defendant E at the time when the Plaintiff occupied and used the building in this case, and D was awarded a successful bid in the name of the Plaintiff. During that process, it was found by forging private documents and received unfair dividends at an overdue interest rate, and the Plaintiff confirmed it and permitted the use of the same as above.).