건물명도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant reported marriage on May 10, 1979, and reported divorce on November 22, 201.
B. On September 7, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased the real estate listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on November 4, 2009. On the same day, the registration of establishment of a collateral security for the instant apartment was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 180,000,000 and the debtor as the Defendant and the mortgagee as Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
C. On January 24, 2013, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff for a judgment on division of property with the Cheongju District Court Branch Decision 201Rahap5, and on January 24, 2013, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the day when the judgment became final to the day of full payment with respect to the KRW 128,00,000 as the division of property and its amount.”
On November 26, 2014, the judgment of the court of first instance was changed and the court of first instance rendered a decision that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 128,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment," which became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, unless the defendant asserted a legitimate title to possess the apartment of this case, he is obliged to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the apartment of this case.
3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to have the right to possess the apartment of this case as the co-owner of the apartment of this case, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is the co-owner of the apartment of this case, and the above argument is without merit.
The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s division of property and the apartment of this case.