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

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. The Plaintiff and C (the Defendant’s mother) maintained a de facto marital relationship for 35 years, while leaving Korea in around 2014, and the de facto marital failure occurred, the Plaintiff filed a claim against C for division of property with the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site Board 2015Ra923.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to the purport that the plaintiff should deliver Goyang-gu D apartment E, Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, which is possessed by the plaintiff as the High Government District Court 2015Ra2015. The plaintiff who lost the lawsuit was delivered the real estate, and then the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case.

Attached Form

The current owner of the recorded apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) is the Plaintiff, and the Defendant occupies the instant apartment.

On the other hand, on the premise that the Plaintiff owned the instant apartment in the case of division of property as Suwon District Court Decision 2015Ra923, the property division trial was notified on September 26, 2017.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 13, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. Since the defendant's duty to deliver the apartment of this case is no longer caused by a de facto marital failure between the plaintiff and C, the apartment of this case cannot be treated as his common property. The plaintiff has no intention to allow the defendant, who is his own consciousness, to continue to occupy the apartment of this case.

Therefore, the defendant should deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the apartment of this case.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment (1) The defendant asserts to the purport that since C has trusted the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, it is the actual owner C, and the plaintiff cannot exercise the ownership of the apartment of this case.

However, it is difficult to see that C owned the instant apartment in title trust (the property formed in a de facto marital relationship is jointly owned by the married couple, so the instant apartment cannot be readily concluded as entirely owned by C. Therefore, there is a property division system).