1. The Suwon District Court Decision 2016No. 540515 Decided February 9, 2017, against the Defendant’s Plaintiff, rendered an executory judgment against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 8, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a share of 1427/2089 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s share”) out of 2,089 square meters prior to the wife population D (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 8, 2016, the Defendant acquired a share of 662/2089 (hereinafter “Defendant’s share”) out of the instant land, other than the Plaintiff’s share, through the auction procedure.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff occupied the entire land of the instant case and filed a lawsuit claiming partition of co-owned property against the Plaintiff, as Suwon District Court 2016Da540515, against the Plaintiff.

However, in the foregoing case, the argument was concluded on January 19, 2017, because the Plaintiff did not clearly dispute the Defendant’s above assertion, and on February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 877,150 per month from March 8, 2016 to the date of the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership in relation to the Defendant’s share or the date of the Defendant’s termination of possession. 2. The judgment of the court below that “the Plaintiff shall sell the instant land to auction to the Defendant and distribute the remaining money after deducting the auction expenses from the price to the Defendant’s share” refers to “the judgment of this case.

(C) On November 22, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Plaintiff’s shares to E. [each entry and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, based on recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings].

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not establish a duty of return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff did not possess and use the instant land since the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s shares. As such, compulsory execution pursuant to Article 1 of the Disposition of this case ought to be denied. (2) No special change in circumstances occurred after the judgment of this case was rendered by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff used and benefiting from the instant land to F for indirect possession.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff’s closing date of the instant judgment.