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

A. The network D had the Plaintiff, E, and Defendant, etc. as their children under the chain.

B. On May 11, 1985, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer made on October 1, 1970 between the Defendant and E, respectively, on October 1, 1970, with respect to one half of the 1261 square meters of paddy-gun, Sejong Special Self-Governing City C (Gu Chungcheongnam-gun), and one half of Sejong Special Self-Governing City.

On April 21, 2006, the said real estate was divided into C 1,035 square meters, etc., and C was again subdivided into C 518 square meters in return for February 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and F 517 square meters in return.

With respect to the instant real estate and the instant F land on March 4, 2014, the registration of share transfer based on the partition of co-owned property was completed, and the instant real estate was owned solely by the Defendant, while the said F land was owned solely by E.

C. On March 31, 2014, E completed the registration of ownership transfer in G due to sale on the same day, and paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff.

On October 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) prepared a letter stating “A shall be paid in full at the time of receipt of the compensation or value of the area for half of the final answer area of 312.3 square meters in Yeongi-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (b) provided that “A shall be paid in full upon receipt of the compensation or value of the area for half of the final answer area of 312.3 square meters in Yeongi-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (c) provided that B shall be liable and paid upon receipt by H and I if the receipt is made after death

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1-3, 11 evidence, witness E's testimony (excluding the part rejected in the front) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as the actual owner of the instant real estate, held title trust to the Defendant. Since the title trust agreement is null and void due to a violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the Defendant acquired the benefit of ownership of the instant real estate without any legal ground. The Defendant is obligated to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate as the return of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff as the original owner.