1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were legally married couple who completed the marriage report on May 30, 2008, and the agreement was married on October 20, 2009.

B. On October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale on October 17, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

From that time, the defendant is residing in the apartment of this case.

C. On November 18, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer against the Plaintiff on the ground of termination of title trust with respect to the instant apartment by this Court Decision 2015Da18974, but withdrawn on April 20, 2016.

In addition, on November 18, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking consolation money and division of property due to the destruction of a de facto marriage under the Daejeon Family Court Support 2015ddan4167, by asserting that the Defendant had maintained a de facto marital relationship even after the divorce with the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 15 and 17 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the apartment of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and since the defendant occupies it, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the right to possess the apartment of this case.

B. (1) The defendant asserts that the apartment of this case purchased with the defendant's funds and held the title trust to the plaintiff. At the time, the plaintiff and the defendant were merely the most confused and thus they were legally married or they were in de facto marital relationship, and thus the title trust agreement is valid. Therefore, the claim of this case on the premise that the apartment of this case is owned by the plaintiff is groundless.

The testimony of the witness C shall be limited to each description or image of scam, Eul 1 through 18, Eul 20 to 24 (including paper numbers) and the testimony of the witness C.