1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the attached list D (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by the Seoul Northern District Court C in the voluntary auction procedure for real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at KRW 131,119,000, and acquired its ownership.

On the other hand, the said voluntary auction procedure had been executed with respect to the instant housing and its site as well as the right to collateral security of KRW 100 million with respect to the maximum debt amount set on May 20, 199, and the maximum debt amount set on March 9, 200 and KRW 50 million with respect to the said housing and its site.

B. On June 3, 2011, the Defendant filed a move-in report on the instant house on February 11, 1997, and filed an application for a report on the right and a demand for distribution with the opposing power as a lessee of KRW 80 million, but did not pay dividends to the Defendant.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant house, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's simultaneous performance defense

A. On February 17, 1997, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff may refuse to transfer the instant housing until the Plaintiff was returned the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million, as the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D, the former owner, and completed the moving-in report on the same day with respect to the instant housing, and acquired the opposing power under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant may be the most lessee in light of the following: (a) there is no objective evidence, such as the fact that the Plaintiff is the principal agent of the Defendant and D; (b) there is no financial transaction details that the Defendant actually paid the deposit amount of KRW 80 million; (c) the value of the instant housing at that time; and (d) the source of the deposit claim by the Defendant.

(b) fact of recognition 1D.