1. Defendant B shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant A.

1. 갑 2호증의 1, 2, 갑 제2호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 2010. 8. 24. 주식회사 쌩쓰투엘리스어소시에이즈로부터 별지 목록 기재 부동산에 관한 담보신탁계약을 체결하고, 2010. 8. 25. 위 부동산에 관하여 신탁을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실, 피고 B은 위 부동산을 점유하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고 B은 소유자인 원고에게 위 부동산을 인도할 의무가 있다.

Defendant B asserted that there was the right to possess the above real estate since it was leased from the above corporation. Accordingly, according to the evidence No. 1, Defendant B acknowledged that the above real estate was leased from the above corporation for a period of one year from July 4, 2013 to July 4, 2013, but if the trustee completed the registration of ownership transfer in the trust of real estate under the Trust Act, the ownership is entirely transferred to the trustee within and outside the country. Thus, even if Defendant B leased the above real estate from the trust, which is the truster after the trust, even if the above real estate was leased from the above corporation, the trustee cannot assert the right to possess the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant A also possessed the above real estate, but it is difficult to recognize that the defendant A possessed the above real estate only with the statement of No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the claim against the defendant A is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.