1. The part concerning the request for extradition of real estate in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. After remand, the judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted a request for the delivery of real estate and a request for payment of money, was justifiable, and the defendant dismissed the defendant's appeal. The Supreme Court accepted the defendant's appeal only against the request for delivery of real estate and reversed and remanded, and dismissed the defendant's remaining appeal.

Therefore, the object of the trial is limited to the request for delivery of real estate that was destroyed and remanded.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted in the auction procedure that acquired the ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and succeeded to the status of the lessor. As the Defendant, the lessee, did not pay the rent, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract and sought the delivery of the real

(b) The facts described below may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 6, and 8 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments.

1) The defendant on April 7, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Meart Development") shall be a Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Meart Development").

) The real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table, which is owned by and in the form of Meart Development (hereinafter referred to as “Non-101”).

(B) the real estate listed in [Attachment 2] No. 2 (hereinafter “Non-102”)

2) The term “instant lease agreement” is defined as KRW 40 million and KRW 1 million per month of rent, and the term “the instant lease agreement” (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

2) Upon entering into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a single lease agreement in which all of the non-101 and non-102 units were written as an object, and without distinguishing each of the security deposit and rent-to-rent 101 and non-102 units were set out as one of the whole.

3. The defendant, on June 30, 2005, registered business with all of the non-101 and non-102 units of non-102 units of non-1 and non-102 units of non-101 units of non-102 units of non-10 units of non-1 and non-102 units of non-1 unit