1. The Plaintiff, the Defendant B, the attached list / [1], and the Defendant C, the attached list / [2].

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 8, 2018 with respect to Mho Lake, Nhoho, Oho, P, Qhoho, Rho, and S among the buildings Least Building, an aggregate building, which is each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the Namyang-si, Nam-si, J, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “each section of exclusive ownership is specified as K building unit”).

B. Defendant B’s Ldong M, Defendant C’s same N, Defendant D’s same P heading, Defendant F’s same P heading, Defendant QF’s same P heading, and Defendant G’s third floor of the same R heading, Defendant H’s fourth floor of the same R heading, and Defendant I’s fourth floor of the same subparagraph.

【Defendant B, C, D, and I: The entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and Defendant E, F, G, and H: The absence of any dispute (the confession)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants have the duty to deliver each possession of real estate to the plaintiff as the owner.

B. As to this, Defendant C asserts that, on October 13, 2017, the lease contract for the lease of the title of the K Building Ldong N from T, which is the lien holder for the aggregate building of the K building, was occupied by the Plaintiff’s employees without permission, and did not currently occupy the locking system by damaging the locking system.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that T is the lien holder of the K building with the description of Eul evidence b2, and there is no other evidence.

Even if it is not so, the lien holder is not able to use, lend, or offer security without the consent of the owner except for the use necessary for the preservation of the thing in custody (Article 324(2) of the Civil Act). If the lien is violated, the debtor or owner may claim the extinction of the lien (Article 3). The fact that the copy of the complaint containing the intent of the plaintiff's claim to extinguish the lien was delivered to the defendant C on April 18, 2018 is clear.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has deprived of the possession of the defendant C.

Defendant C’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.