1. Attached Form 1 to the Suwon District Court Decision 2010Gahap2956 Decided August 17, 2011:

1. The description of the reasons for the claim is as shown in Appendix 2;

2. Judgment by public notice for recognition (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. If it is intended to request the delivery of a part to which a part is partially dismissed on the ground of an illegal possession, the request shall be made against the person who actually occupies the object, and, even if an illegal occupant does not actually possess the object, the request for delivery against him/her is unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da9045 delivered on July 9, 199, etc.). Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant did not actually occupy the real estate indicated in attached Table 1 at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, and thus, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to simply request the Defendant

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7, it is recognized that the defendant obtained an execution clause to succeed to the above real estate's successors on February 24, 2015 by the Suwon District Court Decision 2010Gahap2956 decided August 17, 2011. The above facts of recognition are probable that the defendant will possess the above real estate by compulsory execution based on the above judgment in the future. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff needs to claim in advance only where the above real estate is delivered and executed in the future.

On the other hand, we examine whether the plaintiff needs to request a prior extradition against the defendant in other cases, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.