1. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from October 5, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff is a person who acquired ownership of real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the lease period as of September 4, 2015.

(C) On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant real estate to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 80,000,000; and (c) lease period of September 4, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “second lease”); and (b) as stipulated under the special agreement, Article 6 of the said special agreement provides that “When a lessee is appointed by redevelopment, he/she shall not raise objection to the lessee.”

On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, a regional housing association, (hereinafter referred to as “Successor Intervenor”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 11, 2017.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 through 13, each entry and video (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s determination on the Plaintiff’s claim argues to the effect that the Defendant should deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent from September 5, 2017, as the term of the lease agreement with the Defendant expired, by verbal notification to the Defendant that the Plaintiff did not intend to renew the contract pursuant to paragraph (6) of the special agreement.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the succeeding intervenor around August 10, 2017 and ordered the transfer registration of ownership on August 11, 2017. As such, the Plaintiff is no longer the owner of the instant real estate and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is in the lessor’s status, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The claims of the successor intervenor.