1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on May 25, 1989 as the receipt No. 71227 of the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 7127, May 25, 1989, on April 20, 1989.

B. The defendant occupies the building of this case.

C. The plaintiff and the defendant are South Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant, the possessor of the instant building, is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, unless the Defendant’s assertion as indicated below is accepted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. (1) Whether the Defendant has a legitimate title to occupy the instant building) the gist of the Defendant’s assertion was residing in the instant building from around 2012 to support mother-child, and the Plaintiff did not demand the Defendant to leave. In light of such circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant should be deemed to have entered into an implied loan agreement on the instant building. 2) In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to view that an implied loan agreement was entered into solely on the basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s source of possession right.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion as to whether the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of a building constitutes an abuse of rights is demanding the mother to leave the building of this case to the Defendant, upon the death of the mother. However, considering the circumstances that the Defendant supported the mother’s father while living together with the mother’s father in the building of this case, and that the mother’s father was justified to transfer the building of this case to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has sufficient time and economic constraints for the Defendant.