2. According to the counterclaim that was brought at the trial of the court, the plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant).

A. On June 29, 1993, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on June 29, 1993 with respect to CSang 606 (hereinafter “instant store”). On July 14, 1993, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said C store 605 (hereinafter “605 store”) on June 29, 1993. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13873, Jul. 14, 1993; Presidential Decree No. 13874, Jun. 29, 1993>

B. From around 1996, the Plaintiff received rent from the lessee for the instant store, and also paid the management expenses, and managed the instant store.

On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessee F and the instant store in the name of the lessor B (Defendant) by setting the lease deposit of KRW 3 million and monthly rent of KRW 230,000,000. The Plaintiff was paid from the said F to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, around August 2013, the Defendant closed the instant store by opening the entrance door of the instant store on the ground that the Plaintiff was not at fault, even though the instant store was owned by itself.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff destroyed the instant store that was entrusted by the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant.

The Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant to the effect that it was a crime of property damage, and on May 22, 2014, the Defendant was subject to a disposition from the original District Prosecutors' Office to the effect that there was no evidence for the crime of property damage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 9-7, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff purchased each of the above stores in one’s own money after receiving a proposal from the branch of the instant store and 605 store sale from the branch of the Plaintiff around January 1993, and the Plaintiff purchased the above stores in one’s own money, and the title trust agreement is invalid.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on unjust enrichment with respect to the store of this case to the plaintiff.