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. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), entered into a lease agreement with C by setting the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and the lease term of KRW 24,300,000, and from March 24, 2015 to March 24, 2017, and thereafter, handed over the instant building to C.

B. The Defendant has been occupying and using the instant building at the place where religious activities, such as viewing believerss and worships, etc., are conducted in the instant building until now.

C. On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2017Kadan50768 for a provisional injunction against the transfer of real estate possession as to the instant building, and executed the provisional injunction on April 12, 2017.

(A) Under the execution protocol of provisional disposal of real estate, the obligor is described as “D,” but it seems that it is a clerical error in “B”. [The ground for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. In regard to the instant lawsuit claiming that the Plaintiff without permission occupied the building of this case and filed a request for the delivery of the building of this case against the Defendant, the Defendant did not possess the building of this case, and thus, the Defendant did not have the eligibility to be the Defendant.

However, in the performance suit, a person who was designated as the performance obligor by the plaintiff has the standing to be the defendant, so the defendant's above principal safety defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not occupy the building of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable. However, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.