2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts may be recognized in full view of the arguments and the whole purport of the arguments between the parties, and Gap evidence 1 and 2, and Eul evidence 1:

A. Plaintiff’s claim against KimB

As of the filing date of the instant lawsuit ( June 20, 2012), there exists a tax claim amounting to 000 won in total, including value-added tax, against KimB as of June 20, 2012.

B. Disposition of the instant real property by KimB

On January 20, 2009, KimB completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in the defendant, who is pro-friendly on the ground of a sales contract with the trading value of 00 won on the same day (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") with respect to 00,000 Do-dong 00,000 Do-dong 2645 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case").

C. Existence of the instant agreement

On the other hand, on May 23, 2007, KimB made an agreement that the defendant and the defendant's wife (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's side") transfer the total of 485,200 common shares issued by the defendant's wife and the defendant's wife (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's wife") and HH Construction (hereinafter referred to as "H Construction") to KimB, leave the name of 485,200, and cooperate with the company for a certain period of time in the management of HH Construction, and the main contents thereof are as follows:

(Major Contents Omitted)

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On January 20, 2009, KimB completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant for the reason that the instant real estate was sold in KRW 000,00. After that, KimB received KRW 000 from the Defendant, and thereafter returned all of these facts to the Defendant. The instant sales contract, which is deferred due to these circumstances and the relationship between KimB and the Defendant, constitutes a title trust agreement which was made by a false declaration of intent, or null and void pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant real estate to KimB. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to exercise the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer registration on the ground that the said real estate was restored to the real name. However, KimB did not exercise the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer registration on the ground that the Plaintiff was the Defendant by subrogation of KimB in order to preserve

3. Determination

The fact that KimB transferred the ownership of the instant real estate to the Defendant on January 20, 209 is the same as the above, and that the transfer of the ownership of the instant real estate was made according to the evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including serial numbers), and that KimB received 00 won as the purchase price from the Defendant on January 20, 209, and returned the above amount to the Defendant. However, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the sales contract was made by a false declaration of intention, which is the cause of the ownership transfer registration, or that the registration was made under a title trust agreement which becomes null and void by the law on the registration under the actual owner’s name, and that the Defendant had no obligation to obtain the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate for 20 years, and that the Defendant had no obligation to obtain the ownership transfer registration for 20 years, under the overall purport of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under whose name the ownership transfer registration was made, and that the Defendant had no obligation to obtain the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.