1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant real estate from January 12, 2017. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant real estate, is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff seeking the removal of interference.

2. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion can be acknowledged that the defendant had a legitimate right to possess the real estate of this case as he resides in the real estate of this case with the permission of the head, mother, C, and E as the plaintiff's fraud (C's husband's husband) of the plaintiff's type C (C's husband), but considering the whole purport of the argument as to the statement of evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate of this case was owned by C, and F acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid on April 24, 2006, and that the plaintiff who is a birth of C et al. lost the ownership of the real estate of this case, the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the above F on February 27, 2007 and allowed C to reside in this case. In light of this, the plaintiff's person who permitted possession of the real estate of this case appears to be the plaintiff's type C and E, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant has a legitimate right to occupy the real estate of this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.