1. The defendant shall make a property division agreement on May 25, 2005 with respect to 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including each number), the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a property division agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant on May 25, 2005 regarding each of the real estate listed in the attached list on the same day (hereinafter "each of the real estate of this case"), with the ownership of 1/2 shares, and the ownership transfer registration for each of the real estate of this case has been completed under the defendant's name. According to each of the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for 1/2 shares of each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff pursuant to the property division agreement dated May 25, 2005, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Determination on the defense, etc.

A. The defendant asserts that the contract for division of property was revoked because the plaintiff's threat with a deadly weapon, etc., which led to the conclusion of the contract for division of property. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff forced the defendant at the time. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the acquisition of each real estate of this case contributed by many of the Defendant, and that the said agreement cannot be performed since it paid a large amount of money to children after divorce, but the above circumstances asserted by the Defendant do not constitute a valid defense that prevents or extinguish the effectiveness of the above division of property agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.