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

A. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a loan with Daejeon District Court 201Da31888, and rendered a judgment on June 1, 2012 that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff interest of KRW 55,637,000 and interest of KRW 40,000 or delay damages.”

C’s appeal against this is dismissed on April 12, 2013 (Seoul District Court 2012Na8954), and the appeal was also dismissed on July 11, 2013 (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da34464), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. The total number of 12 households of multi-household buildings with the five-story above ground (hereinafter “instant building”) in Daejeon-gu Ddong (hereinafter “Ddong”) are newly built around September 13, 2005, and the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on September 21, 2005.

The dispute building of this case is 4 households among 12 households of the building of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant is the husband of the birth of C.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure order against the Defendant of Daejeon District Court 2016TTTT No. 54479 regarding the claim for the registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant building in dispute against the Defendant, and the said court issued a seizure order on October 10, 2016 relating thereto (hereinafter “instant seizure order”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 8, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The instant dispute building was newly built by C to acquire its ownership at the original time, and C concluded a title trust agreement with the Defendant and concluded that only the registration of ownership preservation of the instant dispute building was completed in the name of the Defendant.

B. Since the above title trust agreement between the defendant and C is null and void, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on unjust enrichment return to C when the execution of the seizure order of this case regarding the building in dispute of this case is rescinded, and the plaintiff, a creditor of C, seeks implementation by subrogation of C, who is insolvent.

Judgment

A. C original acquisition of the building in the dispute of this case, and the defendant of this case.