1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 1, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract from the Plaintiff of the first instance trial to purchase KRW 660,000,00 for the E Forest (which was divided into the instant land and the Hanam Forest) and three parcels, other than the 660,000,000, but thereafter the said contract became null and void.

B. The Defendant has established and possessed the instant vinyl on the ground of the occupied part of the instant case.

C. On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land and purchased it from the Plaintiff in the first instance trial.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff in the first instance court as Suwon District Court Branch 2015Kadan11945 on the premise that the above sales contract is valid, but lost the lawsuit, and the defendant's appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2016Na54244 Decided April 27, 2017) and appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da208904 Decided April 27, 2017) were all dismissed, and the judgment against the plaintiff was finalized as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 3 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is deemed to have established and possessed a vinyl house on the ground of the occupied portion without legitimate title. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the vinyl house of this case to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and deliver the occupied portion of this case to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

[Defendant appears to remove the instant vinyl and deliver the occupied part of the instant case to escape the compulsory execution procedure following the declaration of provisional execution attached to the judgment of the court of first instance during the proceeding of a trial, and still contests the Plaintiff’s claim by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor. As such, the obligation performed by a declaration of provisional execution cannot be deemed to have the effect of performance definitely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da15827, Jun. 30, 1995). 3. As such, the instant claim by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor should be accepted for the reasons.