1. As to the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is based on the division of property on January 31, 2013.

Basic Facts

On July 6, 1989, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to divorce and the payment of child support on January 31, 2013, and reported divorce on March 28, 2013.

The plaintiff and the defendant together resided in the apartment of this case owned by the defendant, and only the plaintiff are continuously residing in the apartment of this case after the divorce.

On May 8, 2013, with respect to the apartment of this case, the establishment registration was completed on the overseas exchange bank, Korea Exchange Bank, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 360,000,000,000.

On November 27, 2014, the establishment registration of mortgage was completed over the amount of KRW 360,000,000,000,000 for Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd., the debtor, the maximum debt amount.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's entries, 1-1, 1-2, and 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the duty to transfer ownership of the apartment of this case

A. Each party’s assertion asserts that on January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed on property division consultation or agreement between the Defendant and the ownership of the instant apartment within two years and agreed on divorce.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the existence of a division of property consultation or agreement on the apartment of this case was denied, and that the defendant's mother D transferred the land to the plaintiff 2,112 square meters in YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYE

B. According to the following circumstances, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant apartment to the Plaintiff by means of a division of property following a divorce, or by agreement between the parties to the judgment, or by taking into account the respective descriptions, as described in Article 1-4, 2-1, 11, and 12, as well as the overall purport of witness C’

① On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff’s question in the Defendant’s currency, “I can comply with the current situation,” and the Defendant’s question, “I can do so by not later than the month of the promise to be made at the time of divorce,” and the Defendant’s answer should be made so that the solution should not be included.