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

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) obtained a loan from a national bank under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee, and C jointly and severally guaranteed all debts owed to the Plaintiff by the non-party company based on the above credit guarantee.

B. On November 21, 2007, the Plaintiff subrogated to the National Bank of Korea KRW 125,115,506 to the non-party company and the Plaintiff, thereby acquiring a claim for reimbursement equivalent to the amount of subrogated payment.

C. The Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment in the Seoul Central District Court 2007Da446705 claim amounting to C based on the above claim for reimbursement.

On April 8, 2013, the Defendant purchased No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the fourth-story D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the purchase price of KRW 93 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on June 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the claim in this case, C of the actual owner of the real estate in this case held title trust with the defendant. The plaintiff asserts that C of the purchase price of the real estate in this case against the defendant in subrogation of C, which appears to have been borne by C of the purchase price of the real estate in this case, shall exercise C of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 40 million.

However, C trusted the instant real property to the Defendant

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had borne the purchase fund of the instant real estate, and rather, according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 53 million won out of the real estate purchase fund of this case 93 million won was appropriated for the Defendant’s loan to the Nonghyup Bank, and 35 million won was only recognized as having been raised by the Defendant E.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.