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. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale due to voluntary auction on February 13, 2014 with respect to the real estate indicated in the annexed real estate (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and that the Defendants occupied the apartment of this case.

According to the above facts, the defendants have the duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the apartment of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Defendant B’s assertion asserts that, since Defendant B, the agent of Defendant B, agreed to purchase the apartment of this case from E who represented the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request for delivery.

According to the evidence No. 2, it is recognized that Eul, the agent of the defendant Eul, purchased the apartment of this case in total of KRW 330,000,000 from Eul, the plaintiff's agent, and agreed to pay the purchase price until August 31, 2015.

However, the plaintiff asserted that he did not receive at all the purchase price of the apartment in this case from the defendant Eul, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant Eul paid the above purchase price to the plaintiff. As long as the purchase price is not paid, the fact that the contract was concluded as above cannot be viewed as having the right to possess the apartment in this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant Eul is without merit.

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