1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding together the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence 1:

The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff as the Jeonju District Court No. 10227, Dec. 18, 1995, received on June 8, 1994, on the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

B. Around April 18, 2009, the Defendant occupied the apartment of this case and has occupied it until now.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the apartment of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, unless it proves that the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the apartment of this case.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that although the plaintiff church, which was belonging to the Korean War Veterans Association of the A religious organization's General Assembly (hereinafter "A religious organization") was rejected in the resolution about the change of the religious order from the joint council held on February 9, 2003 to the A religious organization's joint religious order (hereinafter "joint religious order"), the members who agreed to the above resolution about the change of the religious order were divided into a joint church composed of the members who agreed to the resolution about the change of the religious order and the existing church belonging to the D religious organization and the above resolution about the change of the religious order after the above resolution, and since the apartment building of this case belongs to the existing church belonging to the religious organization of the A religious organization, the plaintiff who belongs to the joint religious order is not the owner of the apartment building of this case, and therefore it is not possible to respond to the plaintiff's request.

The collective withdrawal of the members of an association which is not a juristic person brings about the result that the properties of the association before the division and division result in the collective ownership of the members of each divided association.