1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on October 2013, with regard to deposit money of 2,50,000 won, and the term of lease from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2017, with respect to 36 square meters and approximately 13 square meters of buildings E on the above land (including sites and buildings; hereinafter “instant store”). The Plaintiff is occupying the instant store.

The defendant has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant after receiving the decision of permission for sale on April 23, 2015 in the auction procedure of F real estate in the court of this Court, which started with respect to the F real estate D in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

Since then, the Defendant filed an application for the issuance of real estate against the Plaintiff who occupies the instant store with this Court No. 2015No. 394, and the said court rendered a decision to order the delivery of the instant store (hereinafter “instant delivery order”) on July 1, 2015, and the delivery order of this case was finalized around that time.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry of Gap's Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant allowed the plaintiff to conduct the business at the store of this case.

All facilities in the store of this case are clearly owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution under the extradition order of this case is unlawful.

However, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant permitted the business of the store of this case, and therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1, the Plaintiff may, upon the Defendant’s request on September 17, 2015, recognize the fact that the Plaintiff prepared and issued a written confirmation to the effect that the Plaintiff immediately remove the facilities within the store of this case and deliver the store of this case (the Plaintiff asserted that it was made by the Defendant’s coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Next, the objection is raised.