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

Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred USD 25,00 to the Defendant around November 20, 2006, and the Defendant purchased each of the instant real estate from C on November 27, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

Therefore, on November 20, 2006, the Defendant should implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the part of one-half of each real estate of this case to the Plaintiff on the ground of an agreement of transfer or the restoration of authentic title.

The plaintiff sought the registration of ownership transfer concerning all of the real estate of this case from the purport of the claim, but it seems to be erroneous in light of the cause of claim.

First of all, the judgment on the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the transfer agreement on November 20, 206, and the defendant purchased each of the instant real estate from C on November 27, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 13, 2006 for the part of the land, and the part of the building was unregistered at the time of the purchase, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 29, 2014 under the defendant's name may be recognized in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2 and all the arguments.

However, even if there was a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the 1/2 portion of each of the instant real estate, there is no proof that C, the seller, was aware of the existence of a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the title trust agreement between the original and the Defendant was concluded by the truster and the trustee, and the Defendant, the trustee, entered into a title trust agreement with C, the seller, and entered into the sales contract with C, and

As such, real estate.