1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) regarding the counterclaim shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with E and 1/2 shares in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Housing Site and its second floor.

After all, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was completed on February 11, 2009 with respect to the land floor (non-101) and the first floor (101; hereinafter "the real estate in this case") among the three-story apartment buildings (a collective building; hereinafter "the building in this case") on which E removed the above house and became the owner of the building, and the second floor (201) and the third floor (301) were completed on the same day.

B. The defendant occupies the above real estate while residing in the instant real estate.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim and the plaintiff's successor's claim

A. According to the fact that the defendant's obligation to deliver the real estate of this case against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor was acknowledged, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the owner of the real estate of this case, unless there is no legitimate possessor

On the other hand, since the plaintiff lost ownership in the real estate of this case, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit.

B. On or around December 2008, the Defendant asserted that the right to manage the instant real estate was authorized to occupy and use the instant real estate since the Defendant received delegation from the Plaintiff (No. 1-1) and received delegation from the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the authenticity of No. 1-1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Defendant G appraiser G.