1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. From January 2016, the Plaintiff leased and occupied part of the 6th floor (including the extension of the rooftop, the stairs room, etc.) of the attached building (hereinafter “instant building”) from January 2016.

On June 12, 2018, the Defendant purchased the instant building in the auction procedure of real estate C in this Court.

The Defendant received an order from the Plaintiff to deliver the part of the sixth floor rooftop and rooftops to the above court FF in relation to the above court D, E, and stairs room. The enforcement officer delegated by the Defendant under the above court D and F order on October 16, 2018. On December 12, 2018, upon the above court E-delivery order, the Defendant carried out the delivery execution of real estate on the part of the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant building in accordance with the above court E-delivery order, and had the Plaintiff keep the Plaintiff’s goods in custody.

On March 13, 2019, the Plaintiff recovered the said goods from the custodian.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, No. 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) committed unlawful compulsory execution on the part of the Plaintiff’s possession, such as rooftops and stairs rooms, which were omitted from the subject of auction or not included in the scope of the order of delivery among the instant buildings; and (b) thereby, (c) thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s cost of collecting goods illegally shipped out of the instant building; and (d) KRW 5 million of the cost of manufacturing goods destroyed during the execution process; and (c) thus, (d) paid KRW 1

B. The facts acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, i.e., the indication of real estate among the specifications of the sale articles, is sufficient if it is indicated to the extent that the identity of the object is recognizable. In addition, the part of the extension of six floors, such as the rooftop possessed by the Plaintiff was already included in the auction procedure by indicating it as a building other than the presentation in the above auction procedure as shown in the attached Form

8.2