2. Of the appeal costs, the part relating to the Plaintiff’s appeal is the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the request for delivery of a building

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate of this case, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff,

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) on May 2007: (a) the Defendant drafted a sales contract with the Defendant on the purchase price of KRW 450,00,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant on the first place; and (b) the actual content of the said contract is as follows: (a) the instant real estate owned by the Defendant and the land of KRW 450,000,000; and (c) the land owned by the Defendant, including KRW

(2) The Plaintiff did not pay KRW 175,00,000 out of the purchase price to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant, on March 5, 2009, declared that the sales contract was rescinded on the ground that it was unpaid by proving the content of the purchase price, and thus, was not obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. Even if the above sales contract still remains valid, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate only by paying the Plaintiff’s purchase price to the Plaintiff with the payment of KRW 175,00,000,000. 2) As to the facts recognized in the judgment of other cases, the facts recognized in the judgment of other cases are not bound by other civil procedures, but have been established in other civil or criminal cases, unless there are special circumstances not to employ them. Accordingly, the facts that the two previous civil procedures were the same as the parties to the dispute, but are the same as the facts that the subject matter of the lawsuit was different, and the subject matter of the lawsuit did not conflict with the res judicata effect.