1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b)15,604,150 Won and its corresponding;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 25, 2009, the Plaintiff and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a real estate lease and golf course business agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to “all land owned by the Plaintiff and its ground buildings, which were authorized as the site for sports facilities other than those other than those located in Jeonnam-gun D.”

B. The head of Masung-gun made a public announcement of perusal for authorization for urban planning facility business (sports facility-golfafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafab) which

The above project was approved as the content of the public notice of inspection.

C. The Defendant Company is operating a golf course by leasing the pertinent land and a building on the ground pursuant to the instant lease agreement.

From January 25, 2011, Defendant C occupies 14,577m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the name of the forest of 14,577m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

E. The Defendant Company asserted that the instant real estate is the subject matter of the instant lease agreement, and allowed Defendant C to use it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the extradition claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendants asserted that the instant real estate is the subject matter of the instant lease agreement, but as seen above, the land, which is the subject matter of the instant lease agreement, is the land authorized as the site for sports facilities, and according to the evidence No. 3, the instant real estate is not included in the land authorized as the site for sports facilities.

In addition, according to Gap evidence No. 12-1, the defendant company filed an application with the plaintiff to seek confirmation that ownership of building, etc. in the golf course is the defendant company, which is the object of the contract of this case.