1. The defendant's case involving the defendant's main district court's Chuncheon District Court's 2009Kadan4731 case's eviction and building name map.

The defendant, on January 11, 2001, purchased D large scale 512 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") from Won-si, Won-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 31st day of the same month.

The Defendant purchased from C, along with the instant land, one building without permission existing on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff and E (the Plaintiff’s husband) occupied the instant building without title. In so doing, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and E seeking a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the removal and delivery of the instant building and the rent for the return of unjust enrichment.

On April 1, 2010, the above court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation decision”) as follows, and the said decision became final and conclusive on April 24, 2010.

① The Plaintiff and E shall deliver the instant building to the Defendant by May 31, 2010. If the building is not delivered by May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and E shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 2.8 million per annum from June 1, 2010 to the delivery date of the building.

② The Plaintiff and E confirm that the instant building is owned by the Defendant, and cooperate in the procedure to change the nominal owner of the property tax ledger from E.

③ The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall cancel the execution of provisional seizure (the same court 2009Kadan924) on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff and E within five days from the time of delivery of the instant building.

(4) By April 30, 2010, the defendant shall file a perjury complaint with F with the Eunpyeong Police Station, while the plaintiff and E shall withdraw perjury complaint with the original police station.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings has a duty to pay damages for delay due to the delivery of the building of this case to the defendant around June 2010.