2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

A. As to the right to use and profit from the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”), the Plaintiff sought the delivery of the instant store by subrogation of the Republic of Korea, the owner, etc., in order to preserve the right to use and profit from the instant store, the Defendant did not have the right to use and profit from the instant store, and the Plaintiff did not have the right to use and profit from the instant store, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as the Plaintiff did not have the right to use and profit from this part of the lawsuit. Therefore, in full view of the following: (a) No. 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 26, 26, and 32 (part of the number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Republic of Korea, the owner of the entire center building in which the instant store is located, granted the right to manage and operate the said building to use and profit from each of the instant stores, and (b) the Plaintiff did not have the right to use and profit from each of the instant stores under the name of the Association No. 1, the Association.

The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s trust to E with respect to the right to use and benefit from the store of this case constitutes invalid, as in the title trust of a contract on real estate, and thus, the right to use and benefit from the store of this case ought to be deemed E. However, the Defendant’s trust agreement is invalidated for the purpose of preventing anti-social acts, such as evasion of speculative evasion, etc., which abuse the real estate registration system, and promoting normalization of real estate transactions and stabilization of real estate prices, thereby contributing to the sound development of