1. The Defendants jointly indicate 1,2,3,4,1 of the attached Form No. 1,2,4,000 square meters among the buildings 90.55 square meters listed in the attached Table to the Plaintiff.

1. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff purchased the building indicated in the attached list (the instant building) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 27, 2017, and the fact that the Defendants occupied part 21 square meters (the part in dispute) in the ship connected in sequence of each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1 among the two stories of the instant building 90.55 square meters, may be recognized by taking account of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or the purport of the entire pleadings in the entry of the evidence No. 1.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the above part of the dispute to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the building of this case, unless the right to possess the above part of the dispute is recognized.

B. On August 17, 2017, when concluding a joint start-up agreement with Defendant B and C, the Plaintiff and Nonparty E are business communities, and the actual owner of the instant building is E. The Defendants agreed to invest cash, assets, such as buildings, and provide the second floor office of the instant building. Therefore, the Defendants were lawfully occupied under the aforementioned joint start-up agreement, and the Plaintiff and E have the right of deposit of KRW 600 million, which can be asserted against, and thus, they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. 2) The written evidence No. 6 is insufficient to acknowledge that E is the actual owner of the instant building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

In addition, in full view of all the evidence submitted by the Defendants, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendants to occupy the dispute portion as asserted by the Defendants under a joint start-up agreement.

It is difficult to see that the Defendants are obliged to possess or authorize possession of the above building, and it is also difficult to recognize that the Defendants have the right to possess the above building, such as the right of retention.

Therefore, the defendants' arguments are without merit.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.