1. The defendant's executive force of the Daegu District Court Decision 2002Kadan7105 delivered on October 24, 2002 against Dodo Housing Co., Ltd.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The land partition rearrangement cooperative in the racing-dong District (hereinafter “cooperative”) is a corporation established to implement the compartmentalization and rearrangement project in the Dongdong-dong and Do Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, and the Do-do Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ban-do Housing”) was a corporation established for the purpose of housing or housing site formation project, etc., and has concluded an entrustment contract with the association on January 17, 1990

B. On January 11, 1997, the Mutual Association transferred B 3,185.1 square meters of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay (hereinafter “instant land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay”) to the Association as payment in lieu of the construction price to the housing Do-do, and the Plaintiff was granted permission to use the land for 1,591 square meters of land for Do-si as a collateral for the financial transaction of housing, and as a result, was transferred from the housing Do-do on January 30, 1997.

C. However, the association and Do-do Housing did not change the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in the name of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the association and Do-do Housing for the change of the ownership of the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense regarding the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for the Republic of Korea ( Daegu District Court Decision 2007Gahap95, Daegu High Court Decision 2008Na4422, Daegu High Court Decision 2010Da47179), and the above judgment was finalized on November 25, 2010.

Despite the above judgment, the union and the Do-do Housing did not change the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for indirect compulsory enforcement (Seoul District Court D, Daegu High Court 201Ra37, Supreme Court 201Ma1395). On June 29, 2011, upon the Plaintiff’s application, the union changed the name of the owner on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development outlay from the partnership to the Do-do housing, but the procedure was not implemented again to change the said owner’s name to the Plaintiff.

E. The union is the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay regarding the land secured for recompense of development outlay from the housing unit to the plaintiff.