건물명도(인도)
1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff a house of 112.12 square meters on the third floor among the real estate indicated in the attached real estate indication.
2...
1. Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant occupies a house of 112.12 square meters on the third floor among the real estate indicated in the attached Form indicating real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant house”), which is a judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion: (i) the plaintiff's father, C and C reside in the housing of this case during the marriage life, and prevented the reduction thereof; (ii) there are shares in the housing of this case, and (iii) C, the actual owner of the housing of this case, promised to pay KRW 50 million in return for delivery, and thus, they cannot deliver the housing of this case before receiving such promise.
In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, in a divorce and a division of property lawsuit between the defendant and C, the housing of this case in the name of the plaintiff is included in the subject of division, but the housing of this case in the name of the plaintiff is definitely reverted to the name of the plaintiff, and the judgment ordering the division of the property (the family court of Jung-gu District Court 2016Reu129 (principal lawsuit), 2018Reu7060 (Counterclaim)) was rendered by means of adjusting the reversion of other property, and it can be acknowledged that the fact that October 5, 2018 has become final and conclusive. Thus, the defendant cannot claim the right to the housing
Meanwhile, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that C sent a text message to the defendant on January 6, 2019, stating that "I would give up to KRW 50 million, such as directors' expenses, and would not give up the agreement and make a final reply if I would give up to the end." This is merely the content of C's proposal, and the defendant did not actually respond to the proposal. Thus, it is recognized that the above evidence alone agreed to pay the price for the delivery of the house in question on the part of the plaintiff.