건물명도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the defendant's judgment as to the defendant's argument to the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. 1) The summary of the claim on public property is that the real estate of this case is the property acquired by the plaintiff during the marriage period with the defendant and the public property of the plaintiff and the defendant. 2) The judgment is based on the property acquired by the plaintiff during the marriage period. The property acquired by one side of the married couple is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner. However, when it is proved that the other side of the married couple or both parties have acquired the property under their own name during the marriage, the presumption of special property shall be reversed and the presumption of special property shall be deemed to be owned by the other party or to be owned by both parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu5624, Oct. 23, 190). However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the
B. Determination 1 on the assertion of violation of the good faith principle 1) The summary of the argument was that the Defendant continuously resided in the instant real estate even after the de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff was terminated, but the Plaintiff did not claim any right against the Defendant, and that Defendant trusted this claim did not claim a division of property against the Plaintiff. However, at the end of about one year and six months after the de facto marital relationship was terminated, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the division of property against the Plaintiff at the time of the termination of the de facto marital relationship, and the Defendant made a claim against the Plaintiff for the division of property due to the resolution of de facto marital relationship, but the period of exclusion was too dismissed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of real estate in this case cannot be allowed