1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2015 Chicago5024

Facts of recognition

On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a construction contract agreement between D, E, and F with the content that the Plaintiff newly constructs multi-household housing on the fourth parcel of land, Gyeyang-gu G, Gyeyang-gu, and the fourth unit of land.

The Defendant purchased 670 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) in the auction procedure for H real estate Hayang-gu, Goyang-gu, Goyang District Court, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 3, 2014 with the sale due to voluntary auction as the grounds for registration.

On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lien with respect to the instant land at the above auction procedure by asserting that there was a lien of KRW 50,000,000 as the secured claim for the civil construction cost claim for the instant land.

After that, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a real estate delivery order seeking the delivery of the instant land with the Goyang Branch of the District Court, and on January 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision of real estate delivery order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall deliver the instant land to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant delivery order”). The Plaintiff did not file an appeal against this order, and thus, the instant delivery order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserted that Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings has a legitimate title to occupy the land of this case as the lien holder with respect to the land of this case. Thus, the delivery order of this case issued to the plaintiff who is the lien holder as the other party is unfair, and therefore, the compulsory execution pursuant to the delivery order of this case should be

Judgment

An order for delivery of real estate is a judgment that can only be appealed (see Article 136(5) of the Civil Execution Act) and constitutes an executive title provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 56 of the Civil Execution Act.

The final and conclusive judgment has res judicata as to the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as the subject matter of a lawsuit, and in the case of the judgment of the order of the decision, the effect of res judicata is to be finally judged.