1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 5, 2015.

B. The Defendants resided in the instant building from around August 2012 to their husband and wife, and occupied and used the instant building.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building.

B. The Defendants’ assertion and judgment A) concluded a lease agreement on the instant building between Defendant C and the Nonparty Company, the former owner of the instant building, around July 2015. Since the Defendants received a delivery of the instant building and entered into a resident registration, Defendant C is a lawful lessee with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, Defendant C cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request. (B) In light of the following circumstances, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 2 and 12, and evidence Nos. 2 and 12, are insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C concluded a lease agreement on the instant building between the Nonparty Company around July 17, 2015, and the completion of resident registration as to the instant building.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

On the other hand, the defendants filed an application for resumption of oral argument after the closing of oral argument in this case and filed an application for fact-finding as to the defendants' resident registration of the building in this case, but they did not submit any data even though they can submit the data on resident registration.