1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have ownership of one half of each share in the attached building.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 197, the Defendant was married with C on June 30, 1981, but the agreement was married with the Plaintiff on May 9, 1986, and a judicial compromise was concluded that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be divorced” in the above lawsuit on February 25, 2000, by filing a divorce lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court under the 99ddan4955.

B. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained de facto marriage from the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) which is the Defendant’s residence to 2017 without filing a divorce report due to the said judicial compromise (the Plaintiff moved resident registration to Pyeongtaek-si apartment E at the seat of the instant building on September 24, 2013, and around September 2017, the Plaintiff left the said stable to the ASEAN-si, a neighboring area of the instant building, and left the said stable to the Gayang-si.

Since January 2018, when the Defendant was close to G and began to live together with G from the beginning of the instant building from January 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against G by entering a residence around January 10, 2018. On March 16, 2018, the Defendant entered a de facto marriage relationship with the original Defendant who filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff again on March 16, 2018, and the Defendant completed the divorce report on June 29, 2018 pursuant to the protocol of conciliation in the instant case No. 99ddan495.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-6 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Part 1 of the claim for confirmation of ownership of the instant building) Generally, a person who constructed a building with his own effort and materials originally acquires the ownership of the said building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da25505, Aug. 18, 1992). This case’s building does not have a person registered as the owner on the public register because it was not prepared with no permission, and it is unclear when the building was constructed. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report on resident registration on September 4, 199 as “Asan City H,” and the above address is the parcel number I around July 25, 200.