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...

Attached Form

Although the Plaintiff, the lien holder of the real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), occupied the instant real estate. However, the Defendant cancelled the locking device installed by the Plaintiff around April 2013, and occupied the instant real estate upon entering the instant real estate, resulting in the Plaintiff’s loss of possession of the instant real estate, and the fact that the Plaintiff was currently not entering the instant real estate, can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in evidence A No. 16-2.

On the other hand, Article 204(1) of the Civil Act provides that "When a possessor has been deprived of his possession, he may claim the return of the article and the compensation for damages." Here, "when the possessor has been deprived of his possession" refers to the case where the possessor has deprived of his factual control without resorting to his intention. The claim for the return of the article in possession as provided in the above provision is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff occupied the article in possession, but the defendant was deprived of it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff, who occupied the instant real estate as the lien holder of the instant real estate, was deprived of possession of the instant real estate by the Defendant, instead of according to its intention. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 204(1) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.