1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex;

B. From March 19, 2019 to the completion date of the above delivery.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on March 19, 2019 with respect to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant completed a move-in report on the instant building on March 4, 2019 and occupied and used the instant building with wife C from that time to that time.

C. From March 19, 2019 to the present building, monthly rent of KRW 591,00 is KRW 591,00.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1-7 evidence, result of entrustment of a discretionary appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 591,000 per month from March 19, 2019 to the completion date of delivery.

As to this, the defendant asserts that C, one of its wife, is the possessor of the building of this case, and the defendant is merely the occupation assistant, not to file the claim of this case against the defendant, and C purchased the building of this case and paid the purchase price in full, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer.

The relationship between husband and wife is not between the order of the other party and the order of the other party, but between the equal relationship. Thus, in a case where a husband and wife living a marital life in a common residential area, the possession should be considered as joint possession, barring special circumstances, and only one party is the assistant in possession of the other party.

shall not be deemed as such.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da16456, 16463 delivered on June 26, 1998). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that a person is only a person of possession of C, who is one’s wife, is without merit.

In addition, as the defendant's assertion, although C purchased the building of this case and paid all the purchase price, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, it does not have any title to possess the building of this case to the defendant or C, and the defendant's above.