1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building attached to the attached list.

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

3...

1. Determination on both arguments

가. 별지 목록에 나오는 건물(이하 편의상 ‘이 사건 건물’이라고 한다)은 원래 피고의 소유였는데, 2004. 10. 19. 이 사건 건물에 관하여 원고 앞으로 소유권이전등기(☞ 등기부상 등기원인 : 2004. 10. 19.자 매매, 이하 편의상 ‘이 사건 등기’라고 한다)가 마쳐진 사실, 현재 피고가 이 사건 건물을 점유하고 있는 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

B. Based on such factual basis, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the delivery of the instant building through the instant lawsuit. As to the registration of this case was completed according to the so-called “transfer contract” between the parties, the Defendant still did not go through the liquidation procedure to exercise the security right, the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of the instant building was unreasonable. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that “the registration of this case was completed by the transfer contract” was “the registration was completed by the transfer for security.” Therefore, the Defendant’s claim based on the different premise cannot be accepted without further review.

2. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the instant building, seeking the fulfillment of its duty, is accepted as it is.