The part concerning the conjunctive claim against Defendant B is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

1. Where the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is generally entrusted to another person only in the name of the owner of real estate, documents proving the legal relationship, such as the registration right certificate, are held by the title truster, who is the actual owner. Therefore, if a person who is referred to as the title trustee possesses these documents of legal relationship, it cannot be deemed as a interference with the recognition of the title trust relationship, unless there is an explanation that he/she is able to obtain the said documents of legal relationship.

In addition, a person registered as an owner of real estate is presumed to have acquired ownership through due process and cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land and building in this case were entrusted to the Defendant B as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendant B and the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant C, contrary to what is alleged in the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, by taking into account the facts and circumstances, including a sales contract for the land in this case and a registration right certificate for the land and building in this case are all kept by the Defendant B.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the admitted evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff and Defendant B engaged in the same business as G from the time G was established on July 1, 1976, and ii) whether the source of the purchase fund for the instant land is G is not known to the long-term flow of three months, although it is difficult to determine the source of the purchase fund for the instant land.