Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant house.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that D Co., Ltd. sold the instant house to D Co., Ltd. in KRW 340 million, and agreed D Co., Ltd. to bear the transfer income tax arising from the sale and purchase of the instant house.

D did not pay capital gains tax.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a lawsuit against D to win the contract amount and received a favorable judgment, and based on the above judgment, received a seizure and collection order as to the claim against D's E corporation based on the above judgment and received a collection order, and held the claim against E.

However, E completes the registration of ownership transfer on the housing of this case owned by it in order to avoid debt collection against the defendant.

D is merely a company that has established E and the Plaintiff in succession for the purpose of evading obligations to the Defendant, and the said company is merely the same company, and the Plaintiff is also jointly and severally liable to pay the agreed amount to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant may set up against D’s claim for the extradition of this case. Since the Defendant’s obligation to deliver and the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the agreed amount are concurrently performed, the Plaintiff’s claim for extradition of this case is unreasonable.

(Simultaneous Performance Defense). On the other hand, the transfer income tax has the right to occupy the house of this case to exercise the lien on the contractual deposit claim equivalent to the transfer income tax, since the tax imposed on the house of this case as the object of taxation is the cost incurred from the object itself, and the right to claim reimbursement of the cost and the house of this case are related.

This case.