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

A. From October 4, 2011 to September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied surface treatment medicine, etc. to D with the Defendant’s father. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said D for the purchase of goods at the Suwon District Court 2013Kahap8738.

On January 13, 2014, where the lawsuit is pending, D confirmed that “D shall have the obligation to pay for the goods of KRW 807,708,131 to the Plaintiff as of October 31, 2013. D was finally affirmed as it became final and conclusive that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 120,000,000 until December 31, 2014, and KRW 180,000 until December 31, 2015, and KRW 240,00,000 until December 31, 2016, and KRW 267,708,131 by December 31, 2017.”

B. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant, including the Defendant’s purchase of apartment, entered into a sales contract with the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the price of KRW 730,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment on November 14, 2016.

On the same day, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 523,600,000 regarding the apartment of this case in H, Inc.

C. D is a debt excess of the positive property.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7 evidence, Eul's 1 through 3 evidence (including each number in case of additional evidence) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion D is that the contract title trust was made between D and the defendant while purchasing the apartment of this case, and therefore, the title trust agreement between D and the defendant is null and void, but since the seller Eul acted in good faith in relation to the contract title trust, the registration of ownership transfer itself in the name of the defendant is valid, D has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent

The plaintiff is against D.