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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a management body comprised of sectional owners of A (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

From February 1, 2011 to January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a service management agreement (hereinafter “instant management agreement”) with D (hereinafter “D”) that allows the instant shopping district to perform the duties of maintaining and managing common areas, guard, cleaning, etc. from February 1, 2011 to January 31, 2013.

B. D has continued to perform the management of the instant commercial building without explicit renewal or re-contract renewal even after the expiration of the contract period.

The Plaintiff, among its employees, notified D and D of the termination of the instant management contract on December 2, 2014 and January 31, 2015 and demanded D to withdraw the instant management contract as of January 31, 2015.

C. However, D continued the management act while occupying the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “management office”) of the second basement of the instant commercial building.

On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff selected F as a controlled entity and entered into a management service contract, and D shall withdraw from the company.

The Gu did not comply with the Gu and continued possession of the management office.

Since then, around July 10, 2017, D sent a notice stating that “the management company was changed to the defendant from July 1, 2017 to the owner of the commercial building of this case” under the name of the management office A, and urged the owner of the commercial building of this case to deposit the management fee into the account under the name of the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1-21 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the Defendant on this safety defense was based on the following: (a) G alleged as the Plaintiff’s representative did not have been appointed as a manager through lawful procedures; (b) even if the Plaintiff was a lawful manager, the two-year term of office expired; and (c) H was appointed at the management body meeting held on May 30, 2017 as a manager.