1. Defendant B, C, and D shall each be listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list among the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff, as the owner of each of the instant stores on October 19, 2006, leased each of the stores listed in Paragraph 2 of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the first floor store”) on the first floor, and the stores listed in Paragraph 3 of the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “the second floor store”) on January 24, 2007 to each F for three years.

The F thereafter operated the wedding hall (hereinafter “instant wedding hall”) in the name of “G” on the first and second floors of the instant building, including each of the instant stores.

The instant wedding business operator changed to H, I, and Defendant C on January 19, 2012, and again, around July 2012, Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) transferred all of its business and operated the instant wedding hall.

Defendant B is a major shareholder of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C is a representative director of the Defendant Company.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 9 (including those with serial numbers, and thereafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings. The judgment of the court of this case is that the plaintiff's assertion of this case occupies each of the stores of this case without legitimate source of right, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion of this case

On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff determined the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the claim against Defendant B, C, and the Defendant Company, on December 10, 2012, ordered the Defendants to take a provisional measure against the prohibition of possession or transfer of each of the instant stores. At the time, the fact that Defendant B, C, and the Defendant Company occupied the first floor store among them is recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statement of evidence No. 2, without dispute between the parties (including the fact that the Defendants do not clearly dispute

Therefore, even if the Defendants did not possess the 1st floor store, the said Defendants did not occupy the 1st floor store.

Even if the above provisional disposition is considered to be the possessor by the party's resistance effect, the plaintiff is obligated to deliver the first floor store to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

However, in the case of two-story stores, above.